I think anyone trying to extract information from a version number, except when comparing numbers to determine which version is newer (*), isn't acting very smartly.

Different projects use different version number strategies. Some version numbers just approach π (TeX) or ε (Metafont(?)). Others use numbers with the date in them (DNS records), or use the age of the module as the date. Yet other projects just copy whatever next CVS number their files get. And there are projects that use major.minor.patch numbers, carefully adjusting the right numbers at the right time. And not every one is consistent. Perl went from "5.005_XX" to "5.6.X". Solaris went "... 2.4, 2.5, 2.5.1, 2.6, 7, 8, 9, ...". Windows went "3.1, 95, 98, 2000, XP" - although I guess they were more names than version numbers.

I prefer to use "major.minor" version numbers, starting at version "1.1", increasing the major number if and only if the interface breaks compatability.

*

And even then not anyone degrees. Is version "3.9" older or new than version "3.10"? I'd say older, but CPAN thinks that "3.10" is older than "3.9" (because it assumes "3.9" is short for "3.900" and "3.10" is short for "3.100").