My new pet peeve - final
-
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
-
And if it becomes even more intense one can add the HHmmss :rolleyes: 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.
-
Do you really want to let a marketing schmuck edit a wiki?
Software Zen:
delete this;Give them credit, if a marketing schmuck can run the most powerful tech company in the world into the ground there's no limit to what they can do! Back on topic, make a shared Google doc and let the drones fight amongst themselves.
-
Haha... I used to have to run around fetching signatures on pointless documents while the more senior programmers were implementing whatever they wanted. I would sort my list of signers by their job title (most important people last). I would fetch signatures from configuration management, software test, test engineering, QA (yes, we had 3 versions of testing), document control, the engineering head, the vp of ... blah blah blah. Anyway, all these people were above me. So the lower ones, who gave me revisions up front... I would implement the revision, bring it back, and then head to the next. Wouldn't you know it, by the time I get to the top, the lower guy is scowling at me because he has to sign it for the umpteenth time, and the only revisions he cared about (his) are gone. I say I'm just doing my job and if he don't sign I'll have to go to the higher ups. ;P I didn't have many friends there. :laugh:
You're doing it wrong - the only signature that counts is the client's! ;P
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)
-
Simple: Newer. Next update: Newest Final update: Newester
What about the updates after the final one? E. g. New Final Newer Final Newest Final :cool:
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)
-
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! ;P
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)
-
AFAIK that's only meant to compare the most recent (or FINAL? ;P ) 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)
-
I'd prefer "The most recent final at the time of this writing" :cool:
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)
-
Before my PM fell in love with Sharepoint (and to be fair, it is easier for non-technical users) we versioned all our office/etc documents with the same tool we used for source control. Diffing was basically a no-go at that time; but we did have proper version history.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies. -- Sarah Hoyt
-
We went through the same thing - but if you save them as HTML documents (which I know has downsides) then you can diff.
If you accept all changes first you can Diff in Word (since 2007 in a side by side multi-pane view like many code diff tools). The main limitation there (from an integration standpoint at least) is that except for delivered versions of documents we almost always have tracked changes in ours. The frustrating part is that Word keeps the date/time of each change, but has no option to only show changes newer than a specific date. :((
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies. -- Sarah Hoyt
-
AFAIK that's only meant to compare the most recent (or FINAL? ;P ) 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? ;-P ) 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
-
I'm organising some documents and I've realised I have a new pet peeve: putting "Final" in a document name to indicate that it's the final version. In itself this isn't awful. What's awful is: document.docx document - final.docx document - final - DG-comments.docx document - FINAL.docx So which one's the final one? This is why documents need source control... [Edit: Just found:" Copy of Copy of document FINAL.docx". We have a winner!]
cheers Chris Maunder