Bob Arning wrote:

> 
> I think an even clearer scheme would use the highest change set number in the
> third position. Thus, the 3.0 image I downloaded a few days ago would be
> 3.0.3414. In fact, at this point the 3.0 becomes mostly sugar coating since
> the change set number basically tells it all.

That was why I suggested that change sets be numbered from 30000 for 3.0 and
31000 for 3.1 and so on. It does what you want plus avoids the sugar coating
problem. 

You are right that the change set number is the de facto version number to
use, but the problem now is that it says nothing about the major version. My
proposal would fix that, making the two series compatible.

Also VMs could simply be designated by the change set level it was built
from. Eg. a VM built from an image at 31177 would clearly read as a 3.1 VM,
while it also could be named 31177 or 3.1.177 or so for those who want more
detail.

</soapbox>

Henrik