Re: poor version management in archetype editor

[Bert Verhees <bert.verhees@rosa.nl>]

A part of version-management is version-numbering.

One should be able to distinguish major versions and minor updates.

A major version would, for example, be another concept to achieve the same medical purpose, for example (not real life) add some more ways to take bloodpressure, f.e. a new tool/way to do this.
Minor versions would be, for example, removal of small-errors typo's etc.
For the minor versions I would recommend to use an extern version tool like SVN
For the major-versions, I would like to propose new features to archetype-editors, and a change of the version-part of the ArchetypeID.
But a change of a path-ID, even if it is repairing a typo, would be a major-version, because it possibly effects the retrieval of data in the OpenEhr-system (by AQL).

Bert

Bert Verhees schreef:

Thomas Beale schreef:
  

The tool on its own does not do version management - just as Word does 
not version manage the documents you create with it. This is not to say 
  
    

As a matter of fact, Word has (kind of) version-management in it.
Previous versions of a document are, in that case, stored in the current
document.
However, this solution I would not propose as a solution for archetypes,
it would make them hard to read.

Bert
_______________________________________________
openEHR-clinical mailing list
openEHR-clinical@openehr.org
http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical