Drop repo revision in version string

[WenSimEHRP]

The version string should be clear and human readable, in our case, it is better if we could follow this style guide.

Adding an extra repo revision section to the version string creates extra effort for the player to understand, since such large number usually isn't something a normal person would expect. Additionally, it follows it's own sequence, and this standalone property may also cause confusion.

It is important to have a revision number , but it's better if we hide it (simple is best!).

[JohnFranklin523]

TLDR: SNCF NO

I don't approve this. This is the best way to let players know the "progress" of CS:T and the "difficulty" (so I would just use Chinese to describe, "筚路蓝缕") of development of China Set.
GRFs such as V4 Trains also have this feature, and the number currently is 8222.

[WenSimEHRP]

I don't know about v4 trains but the majority of GRFs doesn't have an additional revision version number. They follow simple x.y.z syntax.

Yes it does show the progress but other parts also shows it, e.g. 0.3.0.arbitrary-number .The 0.3.0 here shows the development status, and is definitely easier to read than the revision number.

If an author were to add version numbers into the title of their GRF, one thing they must ensure is that the number combined with the GRF's name won't be too long, so it won't distract reading. Removing it from the title saves 4 precious digits (this is particularly important for gamers on phones, as they have smaller screen sizes).

I totally understand that you want to show the development status, but adding an random number isn't the right solution, even if the number is related to internal subjects that a normal player won't even put their eyes on.