I'm going to see if I can't make some sense out of the version-numbering thread of the last couple of days. First: if you've already said your two cents' worth in this thread, please don't chime in again. I think everyone has made their point quite clear. (However, if I misunderstood you and misrepresent you in the summaries below, a brief correction to the list would be appreciated.) It seems to me that there are four camps out there: the control freaks, the anarchists, the middle-of-the-roaders, and John Skaller. The control freaks (me, Fred, and Konrad -- at least you two said you agree with me!) are in favour of prescribing *syntax* for version numbers and *suggesting* semantics. The *proposed* syntax and semantics that I posted are up for debate, but at least three of us like the idea of imposing a little order on how version numbers look, and giving developers some general guidelines -- which they are free to ignore! -- about what they should mean. The anarchists are Greg Stein and Marc-Andre Lemburg; these two take a "live and let live" approach to version numbers. They seem to concede that some very light syntactic requirements are necessary, but want developers to be free to define their semantics however they like. (Or, Greg and Marc-Andre just want to write code to describe the existing multitude of version number systems.) I think Andrew Kuchling is the only middle-of-the-roader, and I might be saying that just because I know Andrew's a pretty relaxed guy and not prone to radical positions like anarchy. Anyways, he posted an anti-prescriptionist statement to the list right after my syntax and semantics proposal. Maybe Andrew is really our third anarchist. Finally, John Skaller is out on his own. As I read it, John has a much wider definition of "version" than I (or the others who've posted on the topic) do. Or maybe it's more accurate to say: I started this thread to talk about *version numbers*, and John is more concerned with software versions *in general* -- all the things that can't be expressed in a simple linear progression. So: do any of you object to the above characterizations? I'd be interested to hear the opinions of anyone outside the above six, especially if you feel there're more sides to this debate than "control freaks", "anarchists", and "John Skaller". (Gee, I hope John is back on the list -- mailman disabled him because of excessive bounces, and I'd hate for him to miss this. ;-) One possible way to resolve this is to provide a couple of standard classes to implement version numbering systems. I won't say any more in detail right now, because I don't want to start another heated debate. But think about it... Greg -- Greg Ward - software developer gward@cnri.reston.va.us Corporation for National Research Initiatives 1895 Preston White Drive voice: +1-703-620-8990 x287 Reston, Virginia, USA 20191-5434 fax: +1-703-620-0913