> > If automatic archiving is overwriting a good version with an untested version
> > then good luck to you. None of this should be automatically archived, it
> > should be controlled in a recoverable manor. Some of us are required to meet
> > ISO9002 standards and that almost dictates identifiable files.
>
> That's what folders are made for.
> Anyway, I could live with both approaches, I was just suggesting not to
> give up an accepted standard just to meet *your own* requirements. :-)
> Others may speak as well.

The problem is that the file we are downloading is not in a folder, and in many
cases there is no indication as to the version number you are about to download.
The international standards dictated by ISO9002 require that one be able to
'recreate the design environment that a particular problem was identified in'. This
is not *my own* requirement, but all companies who have ISO9002 accreditation will
have it removed if they do not obey the rules, and having just had knuckles rapped
for being a little 'flexible' in this area, our accreditation will be removed at
the next inspection if we do not show that we are in full control of software
versioning. The 'accepted standard' of not being able to identify a version easily
is only acceptable if you are not being audited every six months. I HAVE to add the
version number to the name of any source that is not uniquely identified or I go
out of business.

We are, off cause, competing against countries where ISO9002 is not required, but
in Europe is is almost impossible to get good contacts without it.

--
Lester Caine
-----------------------------
L.S.Caine Electronic Services