Why?
If i see that there is an updated version i downlaod it and use this new version for gaming.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Because some people will be printing and binding them. I know I will once the kinks are out (read: after this proofing cycle). It's easier to have a change log to hand-change in the hard copy, or to print only the pages that have had changed made for replacement.

It also allows for an easier time checking what's been done, IMO.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

It also allows two people with slightly different versions who are meeting up for a gaming night to cross reference off each other without the need for the internet.

A change log will be immensely useful for updating the Armyforge lists.

_________________
Uti possidetis, ita possideatis.
May your beer be laid under an enchantment of surpassing excellence for seven years!
An online epic force creator: Armyforge

Why not just compare the documents once the changes have been made? Can even be done for PDFs. Saves tracking them as you go along. Besides, just because you copied it into the changelog doesn't mean you definitely fixed it. And just because you fixed it doesn't mean you remembered to copy it to the changelog.

If you want a way of tracking reported mistakes without being interspersed with discussion, you could use something else like the wiki.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Is there software out there that can compare files and produce a changelog?

This is why I still think Dave should be doing the changelog. I can make a list of the reported typos, but if I were doing the editing myself, I'd be logging each change immediately after I did it. That way I'd have a physical record of what was changed for myself and others. However, different strokes. I've no problem getting at least a list to compare done; I'm working on getting all the reports into the same format and collating them right now.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

Pretty stupid question - does anyone care if the grammer errors are logged? I'm not sure they need to be for the purposes of a changelog.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

Spelling and grammar needn't be logged.

The pdf 'diff' idea is interesting, could save some work.

_________________
Uti possidetis, ita possideatis.
May your beer be laid under an enchantment of surpassing excellence for seven years!
An online epic force creator: Armyforge

I like the idea of dated versions so can keep track of if I am using the correct doc.

I also like the idea of changelog- I don't want to wade through a 200+ page doc or browse through a 15+ page forum thread to work out if any changes to the armies I will play. Like others I would like to print off a full copy of the all of the Approved lists- I would then look at changelog to see if any changes to the lists that I follow.

From reading the o9thers threads it does seem as if there were a disapointing number of errors in the draft doc. Allowing for the fact that some errors could have been pointed out by several people. However more of these errors should have been picked up before Dobbsy started the ardous task of compiling the doc. It looks as if in future the various AC's and sub-AC's need to do more to pick up and correct typos before submitting their lists for compilation.

One suggestion for next time might be that we need a longer period of draft being released before finalisation. e.g. if all lists submitted earlier and then draft published at end of Nov/early Dec. That would give everyone longer to pick up all errors and typos and thus the final version would be cleaner with less errors.

And if AC's / sub-AC's don't submit their list in a timely manner, or with excessive number of typos, then list should be omitted or not have their status updated to development/approved.

Regards

James

I think with the document being built from scratch, we were bound get a ton of errors. Next year we will be modifying a pre-existing (and already proofed) document, so I'd expect to see far fewer errors. It can get especially tough with a single person doing the entire job; my eyes get crossed just with the changedoc from time to time.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

With respect to the change log,

1. Revised versions of the compendium need to be dated and versioned. This is what has been proposed and largely agreed. This should include a change log.
2. The changelog should only reflect significant typos :- erroneous stats etc. It does not need to reflect punctuation and spelling errors except in passing. It should also be versioned and dated to allow speedy checking.
3. Later versions of the changelog should include all previous changes back to the point where that version of the Compendium was issued.
4. Entries in the changelog will reflect a Page number, and "grammar" if that is the case eg
   
   • Page 151, unit w stats FF4+ to FF5+, unit x weapon stats AP3+ to AP 4+ and Grammar
   • Page 155, unit y stats armour 3+ to 4+RA, FF3+ to FF4+, and Grammar
   • Page 158, Grammar
   • Page 162, unit z stats CC3+ to CC4+
   • etc
5. In the first few weeks, I would recommend making it even simpler, and just list the pages where *any* changes are made, so those who want to can print off the relevant pages. eg
   • Change log v1, 01-01-2012, Changes made to P23, P35, p56
   • Changelog v2, 07-01-2012, Changes made to p23, p25, p30, p35, p54, p56
   • etc.
6. Where the changes become too excessive, consider issuing a new version of the compendium, irrespective of the schedule.

You can divide the work if the Word document is on something like Dropbox.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread