"IndianaJonesWB" wrote
Manual control of the version number
seems to be my only alternative. For
now I have a label on my main form
with a number I have to remember to
update whenever I change the front end.
I'm kind of afraid I'll forget but I guess
it's the best way to do it.
Because we had a small team, we alternated "release commander" duties on a
project with which I was associated for five years or so. We were releasing
/ publishing new releases and versions to the users, not tracking
development with release/version, but not once in those five years did any
of us forget to update the version and release, and the corresponding latest
available and mandatory version and release in the server database.
But, each of us used the same checklist... it started with 12 separate
steps, and grew over time to 18 or 19, for the things we did to ready and
publish the new release. Of course, one of those steps dealt with updating
the version in the front end (in our case, it was an MDB, and that
information was in a local table) and another with updating the two
version/release indicators in the server database. A few more details on our
approach are in an article at
http://accdevel.tripod.com.
We did NOT use these versions to track development changes. We defined the
development work to be done on each release, assigned tasks to individuals,
and tracked the tasks. As you might guess, we had separate development and
production databases... when the work for a release was complete, we backed
everything up, and "promoted" the tested development copy to production
status. Because we had a significant chain of backups, we could easily
revert to an earlier version/release if something went wrong.
Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP
Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP