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
Well, you asked :-) Im definately on the side of the Anarchists. IMO, the "deliverables" from this SIG should be unobtrusive as possible, and should conform to _my_ wishes, rather than the other way around. For example, my Windows extensions use a simple "build number", and this is what I want to continue to use. My reasoning is simply that I make many incremental releases - its not a product per se. There is never a clear distinction between "versions" - what would "version 1" of my extensions be, or "version 2"? Further, it is never clear to me when my releases are "beta" - new features may not work completely as advertised, but core features are typically more stable than previous versions. This is almost certainly an artifcat of the volume of things in my single package - but that is the point - the way _I_ do things dont necessarily fit with the other version branding models being imposed. Of course, other things I have in mind _do_ fit better with some of the proposed schemes. So one size doesnt fit all, even just for me! If the deliverables require me to rework too many things, or shoehorn into a scheme that doesnt fit for me, I may simply not bother. Without presuming to speak for Marc and Greg, IMO, the message is clear - if some people on this SIG dont see it working for them, then the chances of it becoming truly general purpose to the wider community are slight. Just MHO (Mark Hammond's Opinion :-), of course! Mark.