On 20 Jan 2006 at 12:26, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: > For me -- and I'm not the only one, as I have heard tales of woe from > others whose retrospective wishes were for more than just that very > last draft -- the incremental filename system keeps a complete record > of progress, including material that I might want to recover later for > other uses, or bits I felt were stupid a few days ago and just > discovered were actually better than my Scotch-besotted late-night > groggy mind believed at the time. My method is a stupidity-protection > system, too.
You're right that I didn't consider the compositional side of things. The incremental versions constitute your "sketchbooks" and "drafts," so, a future musicologist studying your compositional process would be thrilled to have all of those. Point taken. However, there's no reason you can't combine both the undelete program and manual version control. The manual operation you'd do for major points. Even I do this in my own work, keeping the last version before a major edit. I'm not terribly systematic about it, though, and have often wished later on that I had been more systematic. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
