I know that there was a recent strand in relation to version control and lots of advice was given around how to delineate between drafts, major and minor versions and so on. However whilst re-drafting my organisations version control guidelines, and after deciding on a major/minor versions approach, it became aparrent that using version numbering in the v0.1, v1.2 etc. format is problematic when it comes to file naming.
When a file is saved electronically a suffix which indicates the file format, such as .doc, .xml, is added to it and is used by whatever system you are operating when it locates and opens the document. Therefore having an extra . in the version number can cause the system to get confused and documents not to open. The extra . shouldn't be included in the file name however this obviously creates problems for version numbering, where either the file name doesn't include the version number or it reflects it incorrectly, for example as v12 rather than v1.2.
So I'm looking for some help and guidance, how has this been dealt with by other organisations; how can the version number be reflected in the file name/pathway without confusing the operating system and how should this be reflected in guidelines.
All responses greatfully received.
Kirsty Hurt
To view the list archives go to: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=RECORDS-MANAGEMENT-UK
To unsubscribe from this list, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the words UNSUBSCRIBE RECORDS-MANAGEMENT-UK
For any technical queries re JISC please email [log in to unmask]
For any content based queries, please email [log in to unmask]
|