<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Configuration Management on Marko Apfel</title><link>http://blog.marko-apfel.de/topics/configuration-management/</link><description>Recent content in Configuration Management on Marko Apfel</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-US</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:06:00 +0200</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="http://blog.marko-apfel.de/topics/configuration-management/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Using Git for versioning of Word (doc/docx) documents</title><link>http://blog.marko-apfel.de/posts/using-git-for-versioning-of-word-doc-docx-documents/</link><pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:06:00 +0200</pubDate><guid>http://blog.marko-apfel.de/posts/using-git-for-versioning-of-word-doc-docx-documents/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;In too many projects I saw a chaos to store different versions of documents (in case these documents are edited over the time and older versions were kept for later analysis).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Each colleague has an own understanding how to name documents and how to add information about the status/version of the document. So it is not seldom to see timestamps as pre- or suffixes, user and user-acronyms as suffixes, and version numbers as suffixes. It gets really interesting if multiple users co-work on the same document and introduce their own naming guideline. After a few versions you are completely lost to know which document is the most recent version. Sometimes you can hope that sorting for timestamps of OS (Date modified) in the File Explorer leads you to the right one. But too often somebody opens a documents and changes by coincidence something inside (e.g. auto fields, like dates) and confirms the save question during closing with Yes. Then you have an older version with a newer timestamp.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>