|
You'd think.
Except it isn't. You've had merge conflicts before, right? Same deal.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, that sucks then 
|
|
|
|
|
So use a version number before Final in the name to imply it's baselined. Then increment the version number before finalizing and always remove Final while it's a work in progress.
document_1.0.doc
document_1.1.doc
document_2.0_Final.doc
document_2.1.doc
document_2.2.doc
document_2.3.doc
document_3.0_Final.doc
|
|
|
|
|
Nah - makes too much sense! We'll never get management to accept that! 
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
If more than one person will be working on the document simultaneously then source control (like SVN) is the best option.
For documents you are working on that others are not contributing to try the following naming convention. It works for me.
document20140103.docx
document20140131.docx
document20140206.docx
document20140223.docx
document20140316.docx
You will always know the latest and greatest version of the document.
Well at least the latest version. 
Once you lose your pride the rest is easy.
I would agree with you but then we both would be wrong.
The report of my death was an exaggeration - Mark Twain
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
I'm on-line therefore I am.
JimmyRopes
|
|
|
|
|
And if it becomes even more intense one can add the HHmmss 
document20140103_085219.docx
document20140103_090659.docx
document20140103_102534.docx
document20140103_102601.docx
document20140103_103754.docx
document20140103_115910.docx
document20140103_142101.docx
Loading signature...
. . . Please Wait . . .
|
|
|
|
|
I always add a letter to the date, starting with "a", so I don't have to deal with the time.
|
|
|
|
|
Recently while sitting in at the end of a share point configuration provided by a vendor I noticed several copies of an SSRS report in the share. I asked what didn't you enable versioning? The attendees on my side looked perplexed and the "consultant" said, "Yes, I suppose we could have done that.
You just can't win!
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: This is why documents need source control...
You ever try a combo of your code repo and the built-in revisioning tools in Word? Da Link[^]
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
AFAIK that's only meant to compare the most recent (or FINAL?  ) changes. I doubt it can track revisions of revisions.
I remember using such a feature in document reviews some 20 years ago. Of course version control was rudimentary at the time, and nobody ever thought of versioning word documents either, so what we did is maintain version numbers right within the document. At least that kept the confusion concerning names to a minimum. But it had other drawbacks... 
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
Stefan_Lang wrote: AFAIK that's only meant to compare the most recent (or FINAL? ) changes. I doubt it can track revisions of revisions.
I've only used it for that, so you may be right. But using that in comb with source control is better than document naming mangling ya know.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Release your inner demon.
..take a copy of "document - final - DG-comments.docx", copy it once in the directory it's already in, and add the remark "probably the current latest version".
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I'd prefer "The most recent final at the time of this writing" 
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
My solution to this common problem is to rename older versions of the document, e.g:
Document.docx The latest version of the document.
Document - 01.docx First edit.
Document - 02 - Updates per Joe Updates made in response to Joe's review.
Document - Draft An unsequenced draft version of the document.
Chris Maunder wrote: This is why documents need source control...
Of course they do! As does any edited collateral. Aside: File versioning came standard with my first OS (VAX/VMS, circa 1980).
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Ravi Bhavnani wrote: Aside: File versioning came standard with my first OS (VAX/VMS, circa 1980)
PURGE *.* /KEEP=3
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Username: GWHEELER
Password:
Welcome to VAX/VMS 3.1.
Your last login was Mon 14-Jul-2014 07:24:08 AM./ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Your attempt to put me into a state of maudlin sentimentality has succeeded, Ravi. Well played  .
My last experience with a VAX was on a MicroVAX-II back in the late 80's. I worked for a defense contractor at the time. We developed simulations in FORTRAN and Ada. I also used the machine when I was taking graduate artificial intelligence classes. I *cough* borrowed *cough* a friend's C compiler and ported XLISP[^] from the IBM PC to the VAX.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like we've walked similar paths.
I met my first VAX in 1980 at school, and later in 1987 when I joined DEC's AI group. There we used a bit of VAX Lisp, but mostly DEC OPS5 to build XCON[^].
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Ravi Bhavnani wrote: There we used a bit of VAX Lisp, but mostly DEC OPS5 to build XCON
We talked about XCON in my AI classes. The opinion was that is was one of the first (if not the first) genuinely useful commercial AI applications.
I seem to remember the professor saying there was a sign at DEC that said "Last year I couldn't even spell 'knowledge engineer', and now I R1."
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Ha ha ha! That was a quote from my boss, John (McDermott): "Three years ago I wanted to be a knowledge engineer, and today I are one."
Throwback Tuesday[^]
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Awesome.
Think the youngsters are annoyed at the old farts and their war stories yet?
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
You're right. ^Z.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
That's why we have date stamps, Chris!
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
Suggestion:
Don't put the word final in the name, put it in the doc itself. That is how we do it in any case...
Why you may wonder...
You'll have too many docs to maintain/store which becomes ugly. (As you have seen with the names issue)
I the case of using a versioning tool you end up with multiple (and in actual fact this can extend to 100s) of different documents which should only be one document with different revisions... One being internally marked as draft, the next revision being internally marked as final. The draft would usually go through review, update and verify process. The final will never contain comments.
THUS:
One doc with same name and mechanism to indicate state of document internally, managed through source/revision control system or something similar.
"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence."
<< please vote!! >>
modified 15-Jul-14 3:21am.
|
|
|
|
|
Sort by write date, theone with the last date is the last one. Problem solved.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
