|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
At the risk of starting a war, why not just check the last modified file property? Free versioning that comes with every platform.
|
|
|
|
|
Works perfectly if only one person is working on a document.
Breaks down dangerously when two people are working on the same document. Which one is actually the final version and which one was merely saved last?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Final is a myth! Dracula proved this with the Lochness monster's resources when Bigfoot's cousin came to oversee the project after Santa Clause's wife gave him the spring off to visit the Sandman on his holiday to the tooth fairies' palace on the other side of wonderland, knowing the boogey man will try and intervene in proving Final as the truth just before the Easter bunny can use a Leprechaun's wand. 
Chris Maunder wrote: This is why documents need source control...
I give you version control
document.docx
documentV1.docx
documentV2 - DG-comments.docx
documentV3.docx
then at least one knows of the laziness if "Copy of Copy of documentV7.docx" is found 
Loading signature...
. . . Please Wait . . .
|
|
|
|
|
... and this, dear reader, is what document control is for.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: This is why documents need source control
Been there, done that, got the revision history to prove it.
My sub-peeve to your pet-peeve: People who include the revision number in the document filename. I have one document in source control "MSEM_Interface_121.docx", "MSEM_Interface_122.docx", ..., "MSEM_Interface_137.docx" .
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
We have that here as well. The one that gets me is calling something (everything) "Master".
Elephant elephant elephant, sunshine sunshine sunshine
|
|
|
|
|
Is it safe to say that this is your... final pet peeve?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
