And I sure hope that it wasn't a file timestamp to identify the version -- we all know that file timestamps were never a reliable means of identifying program version.

>Many years ago thee was an xBase product named Clipper than compiled the code to a real .exe. They're naming convention was bad, using the season and year. Summer '87 was the one to use, but it got worse. As they released updates, you had to keep track of the time stamp on the compiler .exe file. The version you ultimately wanted was Summer '87, 2:00 AM.
>
>>Talk about confusing.. they start from version number for OS to year (95, 98, 2000), then to name (XP, Vista) then back to version number (which has no relation to internal version)... I guess to be complete, they could also use internal codename as marketing tool as well (and just to be different, have names chosen from a different alphabet, like Greek [so the sequence would be A-B-G-D... instead of the usual A-B-C-D...])...
>>
>>Speaking of naming things... sometimes you need to be careful as the "personality" it might develop might match the name. I recall on one network using Norse mythology as a theme, the one computer that was causing the most trouble was the one named Loki.