|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer to label mine with "Latest" since I don't know if it will be "final."
I'm not a programmer but I play one at the office
|
|
|
|
|
Which one is the final document? It must be the one named:
document - REALLY FINAL - and we mean it this time.doc
|
|
|
|
|
For most documents I create and work on I name them like this: document.YYYY.MM.DD.docx
Then I move older copies to a subfolder called archive. This has saved my bacon more than once. They also sort out quite nicely in windows explorer.
I gave up long ago calling them final or rev 1 or rev 2, until actually officially released.
I work in an engineering firm, and we do have an official document repository. When it's placed there it really is a certain version. then I can name my working file to correspond to the "publishe" official version.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
I've been known to produce documents like that, but I use a script that renames the files when a new version is added.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
How about a pile of disks that have the name of the program and "LATEST" written on them?
Psychosis at 10
Film at 11
Those who do not remember the past, are doomed to repeat it.
Those who do not remember the past, cannot build upon it.
|
|
|
|
|
I get a couple of items of spam a week, which are "bounced" from my hosts as "undeliverable":
Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients And the recipient is one of my old email addresses on a previous domain. I've wondered exactly what is going on, but haven't worried too much because none of the message send logs show any sign of the message, the passwords are unchanged, and changing them doesn't do anything. Until today when I had a thought: what if it's one of the forwarded accounts?
I have a couple of accounts which are there to soak up rubbish: DontSendMeAnyCr*p@MyDomain.com (forwarding: direct to bin) and so forth, and I have a couple with forwarding enabled to send them through to my primary address: Webmaster@MyDomain.com, Sales@MyDomain.com and suchlike. So I had a trawl through the accounts - which is a slow process as I have to open each one in turn, and they won't open in a new tab either.
And sure enough there is just one email address that is forwarded to that email. And it's one of my "specific purpose" email address - ones I create for a specific company to reply to so they don't fill me with drivel if they sell it: I can just close the email account and say "stuff you".
Who is it? UK TV Licencing...now, how did a spammer selling Gentleman Enlargement Products get that one? 
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Certainly don't want any unlicenced TVs wandering around the UK, do we?
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
They have men in vans driving round to prevent it!
Or at least, they used to - in the days of CRTs when you could detect a TV from the coil emissions (and even tell what was being watched). With modern LCDs I suspect Detector Vans have been replaced with a computer list of unlicensed premises and a man with a telephone headset.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly, the Vans got withdrew when LCR power supplies were commonly used in other things (such as microwaves) and the snobby 'I haven't got a TV' types all started to computer monitors. A friend of my Dads was very snobby about TV's and only bought a Mono (amber) Monitor and had the detector van turn up outside his house at least once a month...Jobsite haven't checked that one yet!
|
|
|
|
|
Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients.
Mostly because they didn't read it.
Or their cell phone signal in America was a single bar, unlike those in Afghan caves that can upload video.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone else keep their profile pics semi up-to-date up in this joint? I see some that have been the same for over a decade or are cartoons. That's no fun. People wanna see what people look like. Nothing says "I never get out of the house" like having no picture to show for yourself. Where they be hiding?
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Nothing says "I never get out of the house" like having no picture to show for yourself
I disagree. I think for a few people at least, showing your own face confirms any suspicions that they never get out of the house.
|
|
|
|
|
Or they do not want to be recognized. 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
