On Monday, July 12, 2004, 1:57:27 AM, Neil wrote:

> Kirk Haines wrote:
>> It could be version 9.3.7 or version 0.0.5, but if there isn't sufficient
>> documentation for one to do due diligence research, the version number is
>> not particularly important except as a counter.

> Then how about using dates as versions?  Call the release made tomorrow
> 20040712.

> That won't drive off users who are going to make the reasonable assumption
> that anything below 1.1 can't be trusted for real work, it'll let you
> distinguish one release from another, and everyone wins.

It's not a reasonable assumption.  The points made against that
assumption by various people carry more logic than your mere
assertion.

Using dates betrays any notion of a planned release schedule, so it's
not a win-win situation.

Gavin