Re: [SMW-devel] SMW 2.0 or 10.0?

Hey, 2.0 it is. Cheers -- Jeroen De Dauw http://www.bn2vs.com Don't panic. Don't be evil. ~=[,,_,,]:3 -- -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink C

Re: [SMW-devel] SMW 2.0 or 10.0?

+1 for 10. SMW has a long history and the under-the-hood and process improvements that the team has done justifies the large jump IMHO. === Think Different! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_different#Text) Imagine Different! (http://www.yout

Re: [SMW-devel] SMW 2.0 or 10.0?

+1 for 2.0 for the same reason, Ryan mentioned. Am 20.01.2014 15:45, schrieb Ryan Glasnapp: > The 10.0 versioning makes logical sense, however, 2.0 makes a whole lot more > sense from an end users standpoint. People are going to get confused with the > large jump, and wonder where the other ver

Re: [SMW-devel] SMW 2.0 or 10.0?

The 10.0 versioning makes logical sense, however, 2.0 makes a whole lot more sense from an end users standpoint. People are going to get confused with the large jump, and wonder where the other versions are (and may also not understand why the jump was made). Also, it maintains some consistenc

Re: [SMW-devel] SMW 2.0 or 10.0?

Hi, a piece of software that has been around sind 2006 in now the ninth major version, should really not be called "2.0". So my vote goes to 10.0 - this much more indicates the maturity of SMW! Cheers, Bernhard - Ursprüngliche Mail - > Hey, > > It seems there is general agreement on h

Re: [SMW-devel] SMW 2.0 or 10.0?

+1 to 10.0 unless any super cool features are coming. 2.0 was good enough for the version where subobjects or Triple store support were introduced - Yury Katkov, WikiVote On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Markus Krötzsch < mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote: > Ok, I give in: +1 to "2.0"

Re: [SMW-devel] SMW 2.0 or 10.0?

Ok, I give in: +1 to "2.0" :-) Markus On 18/01/14 19:27, Nischay Nahata wrote: > I didn't follow the full discussion but 2.0 makes more sense to me. > > > On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:15 PM, James HK > wrote: > > Hi, > > >From a visibility point of vi

Re: [SMW-devel] SMW 2.0 or 10.0?

I didn't follow the full discussion but 2.0 makes more sense to me. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:15 PM, James HK wrote: > Hi, > > >From a visibility point of view, jumping from 1.9 to 10 seems a bit > gigantic (even though you can argue the rational behind dropping 1 > where 10 follows 9) but I'm

Re: [SMW-devel] SMW 2.0 or 10.0?

Hi, >From a visibility point of view, jumping from 1.9 to 10 seems a bit gigantic (even though you can argue the rational behind dropping 1 where 10 follows 9) but I'm more in favour of going with 2 instead. Cheers On 1/19/14, Jeroen De Dauw wrote: > Hey, > > It seems there is general agreement

Re: [SMW-devel] SMW 2.0 or 10.0?

I vote for SMW 2.0, specifically with the idea that SMW 1.x works with MW LTS 1.0 though I totally get that SMW 2.0 might/does/could work with later versions of MW. thanks/jmc On 1/18/2014 9:36 AM, Jeroen De Dauw wrote: Hey, It seems there is general agreement on having the next big SMW relea

[SMW-devel] SMW 2.0 or 10.0?

Hey, It seems there is general agreement on having the next big SMW release have a semver.org complaint version number. However there are two options that have been proposed and both work: 2.0 and 10.0. The former one increments the first number, changing it from "the meaningless 1 at the front"