i don't like the scheme described in the article, but i do think that X.Y.Z is overkill. X.Y provides plenty of information and doesn't make me second guess if i should upgrade or not. Z often creates a false sense of confidence that shit wont break. changes in X always mean breakage, changes in Y mean potential, but unintended, breakage.
The patch version is there for very minor things. Adding docs, adding tests, changing metadata, _maybe_ minor bug fixes. Hopefully no one has to depend on a patch version, and hopefully they're usually ".0". I've seen arguments that patch versions should go away, but revving minor versions for some things is often too much churn - people try to understand what's in the new release when it's not even worth their time.
Minor versions are things you reasonably might depend on like a new feature or significant bug fix. You _should_ be able to upgrade seamlessly though one person's bug fix is another's breaking change. I don't think it's reasonable to get rid of these and treat everything as a breaking change.
So I don't know what's simpler for libraries. Semver seems to have boiled it down pretty well.
