Okay, so this is really a question I feel very odd even having to ask. No, I ain't no noob, but I am worried that someone I am working with very much IS. Or there's some other, less polite explanation at work. Please don't laugh, because this is a real situation at a real company. Well, okay, laugh if you must.
I work at a significantly well recognized software manufacturer. a Project manager there wants to ship a web-downloadable API library that allows easier programming against our very successful product. Indeed, Marketing is on board to make this "the next big thing" for our third-party partners.
The deal is, this guy wants to ship the downloadable, the installer, and the component documentation with NO version indication at all. That's right, NONE. He wants to rely on only the build number inside the DLL.
Yes, you read right. The one that ships in a few months will be called "The Great API", and so will the updated one in 9 months, and the version in 12 months, and again and again, even out to as much as ten years. All with ZERO indication of when the thing was published or updated or anything.
The guy's rationale is that it will mean they won't have to change the strings in the installer. Except that all the other files WILL have to change, so I'm not buying that's it's significantly easier.
As if from Zoolander, "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills".
Am I off the mark to continue trying to convince this guy that you can't just ship multiple...if not many iterations of a component library without making it easy for people to know which one they're downloading; which one they're installing, and which one they're using?
I'm perfectly happy just letting it go if there's someone who can make a reasonable case why readily-discernible version identifiers (like "Version 0.9" or "June 2009") are not needed.
So, am I loonie? Or is this just bizarre?
Thanks for your advice here!