Personal attack aside, from your own link: > Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the: > MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes

Personal attack aside, from your own link: > Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the: > MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes > MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards compatible manner > PATCH version when you make backwards compatible bug fixes > Additional labels for pre-release and build metadata are available as extensions to the MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH format. You can point towards some other details, but it doesn't change the fact that for the overwhelming majority of people, the quote above is what semver is. Besides, my original comment does not say "They broke semver", it says they shouldn't bump the major version if they don't make backward incompatible change because afterwards the mental model of "Can I use version X.Y.Z?" is broken. When TensorFlow moved to 2.0 it's because they were changing from graphs and session definition to eager mode. That makes sense, that means the underlying API and how the downstream users interact with it changed. These are just newer features that, while very useful, have limited bearing on downstream users.