Today I swapped the way I was publishing WithStyle to store - instead of publishing as Major.Minor.Patch version pattern eg: 5.16.0 - I'm now using an integer, Mmmmm, eg: 50016. Why did I make this change? Well, it all comes back to Travis Griggs actually.

He has consistently used integers as his version numbers for years now and I always liked the simplicity of it - but could never get past my classical version number training and managementesque arguments for more meaningful version numbers.

Honestly, integer version numbers give you no more meaning than a timestamp. At this moment I realised what it was I wanted store to do - not make me give everything I publish a version number. A version number - to me - indicates that I have a consistent state of code that I want to "label" more specifically than just when it was published.

With that in mind, I really want to be able to publish without giving my code version numbers until I'm happy with its state. So, a compromise for now is to use plain integers as my version numbers in store and hope that may be this idea filters back to the store team and it changes.

So thanks Travis for allowing me to break down another falsehood in my programming umbrella.