|
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
|
|
|
|
|
Also - anyone emailing around a doc to multiple people for their updates - thus we have 20 new branches of "Business Plan (Draft) v1.2.docx" to merge back together...
|
|
|
|
|
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. 
I didn't have many friends there. 
|
|
|
|
|
You're doing it wrong - the only signature that counts is the client's!
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)
|
|
|
|
|
No version control problems - give them a Wiki.
Let them fight it out amongst themselves.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I know this much ~
The final é in finalé is the finalé of finalé.
|
|
|
|
|
At my current work place, we have databases named like below on the same instance of SQL Server
1. Database1
2. Database1 New
3. Database1 Current
4. Database1 Recent
5. Database1 Latest
6. Database1 Real
For some reason, no one wants to delete any of them.
|
|
|
|
|
I make them put their initial after the database version, then I know who the owner is. I'm also in the habit of taking DB off line on the dev and UAT servers, if no one screams in a month I can delete them.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Almost as bad as putting "new" to indicate that this is a new version.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
We have live servers with new at the front of the name.
I hate to think what we'll have if they need replacing again.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
Simple: Newer.
Next update: Newest
Final update: Newester
|
|
|
|
|
What about the updates after the final one? E. g.
New Final
Newer Final
Newest Final
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)
|
|
|
|
|
Reminds me off all those Cher FINAL TOUR! tours.
It was broke, so I fixed it.
|
|
|
|
|
The one with the most recent maintenance date.
|
|
|
|
|
Same here, with 'latest'.
THESE PEOPLE REALLY BOTHER ME!! How can they know what you should do without knowing what you want done?!?!
-- C++ FQA Lite
|
|
|
|
|
The one with the most recent last modified date?
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
