Revision  #0035

[Marshall]

I think if we're going to change from the established format it should be to use
major.minor.revision
If we use a revision number instead of letter then I wouldn't need a separate integer form.
major.minor.revision can easily be separated in program, and has the added advantage of allowing any number of revisions (not just limited to 27).
The revisions that CnCVK is presently using should not be separate to the bugfix number (b/SE) so:
1.08 = 1.8.0 [or simply 1.8]
1.08 SE = 1.8.1
1.08 SE #1234 = 1.8.2
1.08 SE #5678 = 1.8.3
1.10 = 1.10.0 [or simply 1.10]
...but even if CncVK was adamant that a separate bugfix and revision number was neccessary then we have:
1.08 #13579 = 1.8.0.13579
1.08 SE = 1.8.1.0 [or simply 1.8.1]
1.08 SE #1234 = 1.8.1.1234
1.08 SE #5678 = 1.8.1.5678
I would also be inclined to encourage the next TX release to use major.minor.revision
This would mean a very simple format that everyone can understand as well as meaning it could be stored as a single string.
It can also be expanded to any number of branches (1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8...) - I can future proof that right now.

Please use this CnCVK, please! It includes the best of both worlds!