What about going major bump? 1.Y.Z

[RobPasMue]

Pinging @ansys/pymapdl-maintainers

PyMAPDL has been around for quite some time and its API I would say is already stable enough to go with a major 1.Y.Z version. Plus, it will also invite other libraries to follow this approach and move away from the 0.Y.Z version. 0 as major is typically used for libraries that are under quick development... but your API is already pretty stable.

Just opening it for discussion...

[germa89]

We could.....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

😜😬

[germa89]

Joke's appart.

As you say, the user interface is pretty stable. There is not much reasons to keep it 0.X.Y. But because major changes are expected to come this year regarding MAPDL gRPC interface, I would probably way to see how that pans out first.

After those changes are implemented, we could consider to bump to 1.X.Y if the stability is good enough.

Pinging @ansys/pyansys-core for feedback.

[RobPasMue]

Well... you could do 1.Y.Z for the current gRPC layer and whenever the changes come in you do a major bump to 2.Y.Z since many breaking changes are expected and a whole new interface will be coming.

[koubaa]

@germa89 @RobPasMue I think the gRPC layer updates can't cause a major version change. Because if the gRPC server changes, that will be in only a given version, and pyMAPDL should work across versions.

I don't see a strong reason to commit to 1.x yet. But it would be a good idea to tag some issues with the 1.0 milestone so we at least keep track from a quality perspective which issues we expect to solve for the 1.0 release.