I like the way Telerik versions their libraries. It puts meaning behind the version instead of simply being a sequential number.

>Yes, it was a file timestamp. In this case, it was reliable because the developer would not change the compiler. But still, not a good way to do it.
>
>I've never been a fan of years, seasons, etc to indicate a version. There's a reason we have version numbers.
>
>>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.