Proposal for a change to the NextCloud workflow

For the benefit of those who were not part of yesterday's team meeting,
or haven't yet read the minutes. I put forward a proposal as per the
subject line of this post.

A copy of my proposal is available from:
https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/9FqwWK3m6Cy2zHQ
The proposal has 5 points together with my rational for the changes.

If there are no reasonable objections, I propose to start updating our
NextCloud instance on Friday, 18th. September.

Best Regards
Dave

Hello Dave

Could please add that the creator and reviewer of a chapter MUST add their initials into the filename.
For example IG7005-ManagingGraphicObjects-PS.odt as I am the creator of the file.
If you review this chapter, then your initials are added to the filename IG7005-ManagingGraphicObjects-PS-DB.odt.
I will then make the changes as necessary and filename is changed to IG7005-ManagingGraphicObjects-PS-DB-PS.odt.
I think this way shows the history of the file better. There is no need to add the date into the filename.

I also think that Drafts folder stays because the chapter file is in draft mode until published. The Feedback folder, in my opinion, causes confusion.

Regards
Peter Schofield
psauthor@gmail.com

Then Peter we must agree to disagree, because our opinions are totally
opposite.

Regards
Dave

I think this process is much easier than the current process.
Further more it would be more consistent if alt the guides use the same process.

DaveB schreef op 11.09.2020 16:18:

Hello Dave

Another thought to help in keeping track of files and this comes from the day when I used to earn money in tech writing.

First draft of a file and its filename use a sequence number and the creator’s initials, for example IG7005-ManagingGraphicObjects-01-PS.odt.
First review of a file, the reviewer adds their initials to the filename, for example IG7005-ManagingGraphicObjects-01-PS-DB.odt.

Second draft of a file, the sequence number increases changing the filename and the creator adds their initials, for example IG7005-ManagingGraphicObjects-02-PS.odt.
Second review of a file, the reviewer adds their initials to the filename, for example IG7005-ManagingGraphicObjects-02-PS-DB.odt.

When the file is published, the filename does not have a sequence number or any initials added, for example IG7005-ManagingGraphicObjects.odt.

This does give a good indication of which file is which and prevents the wrong file from being edited again. It worked very well for me and a team of technical writers.

We will agree to disagree about folder names, but still think Feedback is the wrong name to use. A Published folder is a definite.

Regards

Peter Schofield
psauthor@gmail.com

Hi Peter,

I am not particularly concerned about the naming of files, my only real
interest is that there is a simple straight forward and reliable way to
identify the last edition of the file and where a previous edition of
that file exists, it can easily be researched and/or recovered.
All files with any name difference automatically acquire a modified
date, so identification is extremely simple. Inclusion of the author
initials serves no real worthwhile purpose, this identification is
already taken care of in the status sheet and the contributors section
of every guide chapter. Part of the reasoning behind my suggestion that
we all identify our initials to names on the status sheets.

If we had even a dozen or more regular contributors then a rigorous file
naming regime might serve a useful purpose.

Having files stored in just 2 sub-directories (sub-folders) eliminates
any possibility of the same file being edited twice. Personally I don't
give a "flying fig" what name the folders are given. If it were up to me
I would name them WIP (Work In Progress) to hold the most recently
edited editions of the files and Archive to hold previously edited
editions. I am yet to be convinced about the value of the Published
folder, but my view on that point is of no importance.

My one and only motivation is to simplify our workflow. To me
simplification and ease of understanding of our workflow is an important
part of getting and keeping new contributors involved. New contributors
are what the team will always need, because "creaking old geezers" like
you and I who understand how things were done "In the good ol' days"
won't be here forever.

OK, I've had my 2c ramble. Now I will leave it to the rest of the team
to decide what we do.

Best Regards
Dave

PS. I am subscribed, to the list so the private mail is unnecessary :slight_smile:

I think ultimately this is a discussion about versioning and collaboration
in a program (NextCloud) that is not a collaborative version control site.
I think that simplifying the folder structure would be helpful to organize
the iterations of a document, but it would also mean that the file naming
convention would be very important for versioning.

As far as my understanding goes, we [would] have a process like this:

1. A new/original document is made by a Creator (this person has editorial
‘control’ over said document)

2. When ready for review it is put into the “Feedback” (or “Work in
Progress”) folder, with a naming scheme such as:

*<guide name abbreviation><version number><chapter number>_<creators

_<date of submission>.extension*

*For example:* *IG706_AB_1Sept2020.odt*

3. A Reviewer downloads a copy (leaving a copy in the folder) and performs
edits, reviews, etc.

4. When complete, the Reviewer uploads the newly edited file back to the
same “Feedback” folder, with a naming convention such as:

*<guide name abbreviation><version number><chapter number>_<creators

_<reviewers initials>_<date of submission>.extension*

*For example: IG706_AB_CD_2Sept2020.odt*

5. The Creator accepts, confirms, or rejects changes as necessary, then
saves this to the “Feedback” folder as a new file, with a naming scheme
such as:

*<guide name abbreviation><version number><chapter number>_<creators

_<date of submission>.extension*

*For example: IG706_AB_3Sept2020.odt*

6. At the end of this cycle, this single folder would contain 3 versions of
the created file. And would look like:

*IG706_AB_1Sept2020.odt*
*IG706_AB_CD_2Sept2020.odt**IG706_AB_3Sept2020.odt*

And then we repeat the process. All email messages stay the same, and the
status spreadsheet stays the same. This would mean that until a chapter is
published we all have access to all previous copies, organized by date, and
with contributor identification. Then the files go to the Archives?

Dave, is this the process that you are thinking of? Or am I
misunderstanding the use of the Archive folder?

All the best,
Sam.

  Samantha Hamilton
  darling docs

  <http://www.darlingdocs.com> <https://github.com/samanthahamilton>[image:
www.linkedin.com/in/shamilton-darlingdocs]
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/shamilton-darlingdocs>

Hi Sam,

Many thanks for your input. My responses are given in-line with the
points in your original message.

I think ultimately this is a discussion about versioning and collaboration
in a program (NextCloud) that is not a collaborative version control site.
I think that simplifying the folder structure would be helpful to organize
the iterations of a document, but it would also mean that the file naming
convention would be very important for versioning.

Let's move away from the unnecessary complications of file naming and
versioning. The only important point is that each edit of a chapter file
is given a unique file name. If having other identifying characters in
the file name is what the team wants, I am fine with that.

It doesn't matter if this is the first draft of a chapter, or the 50th
edited review. The file is uploaded to the Feedback/Work in Progress
folder and if a previous copy of that chapter file exists in the
Feedback/Work in Progress folder, that previous copy is IMMEDIATELY
moved to the Archive folder. At any one time there will only ever be one
(last edited) copy of any chapter file in the Feedback/Work In Progress
folder of any book and for anyone wishing to review, revise or otherwise
edit that chapter this is the file they take.

As far as my understanding goes, we [would] have a process like this:

1. A new/original document is made by a Creator (this person has editorial
‘control’ over said document)

I seem to have missed the memo about "editorial control".
Does this mean:
* If I am the first to start work on a chapter for a new version of a
  guide, do I get "editorial control" for just that chapter or all
  chapters for that version of the guide?
* If I take on the role of Guide Coordinator, do I get "editorial
  control" of that guide?

2. When ready for review it is put into the “Feedback” (or “Work in
Progress”) folder, with a naming scheme such as:

*<guide name abbreviation><version number><chapter number>_<creators
>_<date of submission>.extension*

*For example:* *IG706_AB_1Sept2020.odt*

It's unclear what benefit would be gained from this file naming
convention. The file will already have a modified date and the
author/reviewer is already identified in the status sheet and the
"Contributors" section of the chapter document. As I said above, "If
having other identifying characters in the file name is what the team
wants, I am fine with that".

3. A Reviewer downloads a copy (leaving a copy in the folder) and performs
edits, reviews, etc.

4. When complete, the Reviewer uploads the newly edited file back to the
same “Feedback” folder,

Yes and the reviewer IMMEDIATELY moves any previous copy to the Archive
storage folder.

with a naming convention such as:
*<guide name abbreviation><version number><chapter number>_<creators
>_<reviewers initials>_<date of submission>.extension*

*For example: IG706_AB_CD_2Sept2020.odt*

Please see my previous comments regarding file naming.

5. The Creator accepts, confirms, or rejects changes as necessary, then
saves this to the “Feedback” folder as a new file, with a naming scheme
such as:

*<guide name abbreviation><version number><chapter number>_<creators
>_<date of submission>.extension*

*For example: IG706_AB_3Sept2020.odt*

See my previous comments about "editorial control".

6. At the end of this cycle, this single folder would contain 3 versions of
the created file. And would look like:

*IG706_AB_1Sept2020.odt*
*IG706_AB_CD_2Sept2020.odt**IG706_AB_3Sept2020.odt*

No. My earlier comment: "At any one time there will only ever be one
(last edited) copy of any chapter file in the Feedback/Work In Progress
folder of any book". All other draft and review copies will already be
in the Archive storage folder.

And then we repeat the process. All email messages stay the same, and the
status spreadsheet stays the same. This would mean that until a chapter is
published we all have access to all previous copies, organized by date, and
with contributor identification.

My proposal makes no reference to changing anything other than the
directory structure and the workflow on NextCloud. At all times every
one of us has access to every file in the Documentation NextCloud
instance and my proposal will do nothing to change that.

Then the files go to the Archives?

No. The Archive sub-directory would be a continuous backup store for all
previous copies.

Dave, is this the process that you are thinking of?

It seems I did a really poor job of documenting my proposal.

Or am I misunderstanding the use of the Archive folder?

There is nothing special about the sub-directory having the name
Archive. It could just as easily be renamed Dump, Backup or any
meaningful name and still serve the same purpose.

All the best,
Sam.

  Samantha Hamilton
  darling docs

  <http://www.darlingdocs.com> <https://github.com/samanthahamilton>[image:
www.linkedin.com/in/shamilton-darlingdocs]
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/shamilton-darlingdocs>

Best Regards
Dave

Hello Dave and Samantha

I am with you and agree to the proposed changes, despite having slight disagreement about folders.

Work in Progress is definitely the best name for a working folder. Archive folder fits the bill perfectly.

File naming is the only thing that bugs me. Adding the date into the filename is not necessary and does make it cumbersome.

Adding a version number (01,02, etc) to the filename would be insurance IF someone forgets to move old files into Archive.

As I am already working on th Impress Guide as a whole, I suppose I have editorial control???

Also, I am starting to work on the Draw Guide, which, in theory, I also have editorial control???

The Draw Guide and Impress Guide are very similar and I am swapping information between the two guides.

Regards
Peter Schofield
psauthor@gmail.com

Hi Peter and Team,

My responses are given in-line.

Thank you, Dave, for clarifying the process further. Now that I see the
process more clearly, I think the changes would be very helpful for the
workflow.

Best,
Sam.

  Samantha Hamilton
  darling docs

  <http://www.darlingdocs.com> <https://github.com/samanthahamilton>[image:
www.linkedin.com/in/shamilton-darlingdocs]
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/shamilton-darlingdocs>

Hello Dave

I shall trial the new folders for th Draw Guide 7.0 having just created the skeleton of the guide. In other words, creating chapters using the 7.0 template and posting in basic information.

It is not so onerous doing the two guides. More than half go the Draw Guide is already done. It is called the Impress Guide. Just have to check all screen shots to make sure they are OK for the Draw Guide

It keeps me busy now being officially retired.

Regards
Peter Schofield
psauthor@gmail.com

Hi Peter,

Sounds good. There are a couple of things we need to clarify/finalise;

Would you be kind enough to put forward a proposal for the file naming
convention to be used for the new workflow/structure? I would be happy
with something like "GS7001 Introducing LibreOffice #1.odt" but you and
other team members might wish to include some additional identification.
It would be good if the team can reach consensus on this asap.

The 7.0 template needs to be finalised. I will raise a separate thread
about this.

Officially Retired? Good grief, I don't know how I ever found time for
everyday work :)))

Best Regards
Dave

Minor correction in terminology:"other team members might wish to include some additional
    identification."Should have read:"other team members might wish to include some additional *oralternative* identification."On 15/09/2020 16:22, DaveB wrote:Hi Peter,Sounds good. There are a couple of things we need to
      clarify/finalise;Would you be kind enough to put forward a proposal for the file
      namingconvention to be used for the new workflow/structure? I would be
      happywith something like "GS7001 Introducing LibreOffice #1.odt" but
      you andother team members might wish to include some additional
      identification.It would be good if the team can reach consensus on this asap.The 7.0 template needs to be finalised. I will raise a separate
      threadabout this.Officially Retired? Good grief, I don't know how I ever found time
      foreveryday work :)))Best RegardsDave-------- Original Message --------From: Peter Schofield [mailto:psauthor@gmail.com]Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020, 13:32 UTCTo: DaveBCc: LibreOfficeSubject: [libreoffice-documentation] Proposal for a change to theNextCloud workflowHello DaveI shall trial the new folders for th Draw Guide 7.0 having just
        created the skeleton of the guide. In other words, creating
        chapters using the 7.0 template and posting in basic
        information.It is not so onerous doing the two guides. More than half go the
        Draw Guide is already done. It is called the Impress Guide. Just
        have to check all screen shots to make sure they are OK for the
        Draw GuideIt keeps me busy now being officially retired.RegardsPeter Schofieldpsauthor@gmail.comOn 15 Sep 2020, at 12:46, DaveBuser.net@posteo.netwrote:Hi Peter and Team,My responses are given in-line.-------- Original Message --------From: Peter Schofield [mailto:psauthor@gmail.com]Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020, 07:50 UTCTo: DaveBCc: LibreOfficeSubject: [libreoffice-documentation] Proposal for a change to
          theNextCloud workflowHello Dave and SamanthaI am with you and agree to the proposed changes, despite
            having slight disagreement about folders.That's good to know. I am sure we can find a way to resolve
          smalldisagreements.Work in Progress is definitely the
            best name for a working folder. Archive folder fits the bill
            perfectly.WIP (Work in Progress) seems to be a more accurate description
          of thefolder's purpose and I can think of no good reason to change
          the Archivefolder name.File naming is the only thing that
            bugs me. Adding the date into the filename is not necessary
            and does make it cumbersome.As I said in my reply to Sam, I am comfortable with whatever
          file namingconvention the team reaches consensus on.Adding a version number (01,02, etc)
            to the filename would be insurance IF someone forgets to
            move old files into Archive.Sure. Each filename being being unique is the only thing I
          consider tobe important. How that unique identity is defined is for the
          team toagree upon.As I am already working on th Impress

            Guide as a whole, I suppose I have editorial control???Also, I am starting to work on the Draw Guide, which, in
            theory, I also have editorial control???The Draw Guide and Impress Guide are very similar and I am
            swapping information between the two guides.Since you have taken on the (IMO somewhat onerous) task of
          almostsingle-handedly rewriting those guides, I doubt that anyone
          wouldquestion that you should have editorial control of those
          guides.I have been asked to take on the role of "Guide Coordinator"
          for version7 of the Getting Started Guide, but I have no intention (or
          ability) tosingle-handedly rewrite all the chapters for that guide. I was
          veryimpressed by Steve Fanning's management of the Calc Guide, but
          I doubtthat I will be able to make the same level of commitment to
          GettingStarted Guide. More on this point in the next few days.RegardsPeter Schofieldpsauthor@gmail.comBest RegardsDaveOn 14 Sep 2020, at 21:09, DaveBuser.net@posteo.netwrote:Hi Sam,Many thanks for your input. My responses are given in-line
              with thepoints in your original message.On 12/09/2020 21:03, Samantha Hamilton wrote:I think ultimately this is a
                discussion about versioning and collaborationin a program (NextCloud) that is not a collaborative
                version control site.I think that simplifying the folder structure would be
                helpful to organizethe iterations of a document, but it would also mean
                that the file namingconvention would be very important for versioning.Let's move away from the unnecessary complications of file
              naming andversioning. The only important point is that each edit of
              a chapter fileis given a unique file name. If having other identifying
              characters inthe file name is what the team wants, I am fine with that.<br>It doesn't matter if this is the first draft of a chapter,
              or the 50thedited review. The file is uploaded to the Feedback/Work
              in Progressfolder and if a previous copy of that chapter file exists
              in theFeedback/Work in Progress folder, that previous copy is
              IMMEDIATELYmoved to the Archive folder. At any one time there will
              only ever be one(last edited) copy of any chapter file in the
              Feedback/Work In Progressfolder of any book and for anyone wishing to review,
              revise or otherwiseedit that chapter this is the file they take.As far as my understanding goes,
                we [would] have a process like this:1. A new/original document is made by a Creator (this
                person has editorial‘control’ over said document)I seem to have missed the memo about "editorial control".Does this mean:* If I am the first to start work on a chapter for a new
              version of aguide, do I get "editorial control" for just that chapter
              or allchapters for that version of the guide?* If I take on the role of Guide Coordinator, do I get
              "editorialcontrol" of that guide?2. When ready for review it is put
                into the “Feedback” (or “Work in<br>
                Progress”) folder, with a naming scheme such as:<br>*guide name abbreviationversion
                numberchapter number_creatorsinitials_date of submission.extension**For example:* *IG706_AB_1Sept2020.odt*It's unclear what benefit would be gained from this file
              namingconvention. The file will already have a modified date and
              theauthor/reviewer is already identified in the status sheet
              and the"Contributors" section of the chapter document. As I said
              above, "Ifhaving other identifying characters in the file name is
              what the teamwants, I am fine with that".3. A Reviewer downloads a copy
                (leaving a copy in the folder) and performsedits, reviews, etc.4. When complete, the Reviewer uploads the newly edited
                file back to thesame “Feedback” folder,Yes and the reviewer IMMEDIATELY moves any previous copy
              to the Archivestorage folder.with a naming convention such as:=*guide name abbreviationversion
                numberchapter number_creatorsinitials_reviewers initials_date of
                submission.extension**For example: IG706_AB_CD_2Sept2020.odt*Please see my previous comments regarding file naming.5. The Creator accepts, confirms,

                or rejects changes as necessary, thensaves this to the “Feedback” folder as a new file, with
                a naming schemesuch as:*guide name abbreviationversion
                numberchapter number_creatorsinitials_date of submission.extension**For example: IG706_AB_3Sept2020.odt*See my previous comments about "editorial control".6. At the end of this cycle, this

                single folder would contain 3 versions ofthe created file. And would look like:*IG706_AB_1Sept2020.odt**IG706_AB_CD_2Sept2020.odt**IG706_AB_3Sept2020.odt*No. My earlier comment: "At any one time there will only
              ever be one(last edited) copy of any chapter file in the
              Feedback/Work In Progressfolder of any book". All other draft and review copies
              will already bein the Archive storage folder.And then we repeat the process.
                All email messages stay the same, and thestatus spreadsheet stays the same. This would mean that
                until a chapter ispublished we all have access to all previous copies,
                organized by date, andwith contributor identification.My proposal makes no reference to changing anything other
              than thedirectory structure and the workflow on NextCloud. At all
              times everyone of us has access to every file in the Documentation
              NextCloudinstance and my proposal will do nothing to change that.Then the files go to the Archives?No. The Archive sub-directory would be a continuous backup
              store for allprevious copies.Dave, is this the process that you
                are thinking of?It seems I did a really poor job of documenting my
              proposal.Or am I misunderstanding the use
                of the Archive folder?There is nothing special about the sub-directory having
              the nameArchive. It could just as easily be renamed Dump, Backup
              or anymeaningful name and still serve the same purpose.All the best,Sam.Samantha Hamiltondarling docshttp://www.darlingdocs.comhttps://github.com/samanthahamilton[image:www.linkedin.com/in/shamilton-darlingdocs]http://www.linkedin.com/in/shamilton-darlingdocsBest RegardsDaveOn Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 8:47 AM
                Useruser.net@posteo.netwrote:Hi Peter,I am not particularly concerned about the naming of
                  files, my only realinterest is that there is a simple straight forward
                  and reliable way toidentify the last edition of the file and where a
                  previous edition ofthat file exists, it can easily be researched and/or
                  recovered.All files with any name difference automatically
                  acquire a modifieddate, so identification is extremely simple. Inclusion
                  of the authorinitials serves no real worthwhile purpose, this
                  identification isalready taken care of in the status sheet and the
                  contributors sectionof every guide chapter. Part of the reasoning behind
                  my suggestion thatwe all identify our initials to names on the status
                  sheets.If we had even a dozen or more regular contributors
                  then a rigorous filenaming regime might serve a useful purpose.Having files stored in just 2 sub-directories
                  (sub-folders) eliminatesany possibility of the same file being edited twice.
                  Personally I don'tgive a "flying fig" what name the folders are given.
                  If it were up to meI would name them WIP (Work In Progress) to hold the
                  most recentlyedited editions of the files and Archive to hold
                  previously editededitions. I am yet to be convinced about the value of
                  the Publishedfolder, but my view on that point is of no importance.<br>My one and only motivation is to simplify our
                  workflow. To mesimplification and ease of understanding of our
                  workflow is an importantpart of getting and keeping new contributors involved.
                  New contributorsare what the team will always need, because "creaking
                  old geezers" likeyou and I who understand how things were done "In the
                  good ol' days"won't be here forever.OK, I've had my 2c ramble. Now I will leave it to the
                  rest of the teamto decide what we do.Best RegardsDavePS. I am subscribed, to the list so the private mail
                  is unnecessary :)-------- Original Message --------From: Peter Schofield [mailto:psauthor@gmail.com]Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2020, 10:38 UTCTo: DaveBCc: LibreOfficeSubject: [libreoffice-documentation] Proposal for a
                  change to theNextCloud workflowHello DaveAnother thought to help in keeping track of files
                    and this comes fromthe day when I used to earn money in tech writing.First draft of a file and its filename use a
                    sequence number and thecreator’s initials, for example
                  IG7005-ManagingGraphicObjects-01-PS.odt.First review of a file, the
                    reviewer adds their initials to thefilename, for example
                  IG7005-ManagingGraphicObjects-01-PS-DB.odt.Second draft of a file, the sequence number
                    increases changing thefilename and the creator adds their initials, for
                  exampleIG7005-ManagingGraphicObjects-02-PS.odt.Second review of a file, the
                    reviewer adds their initials to thefilename, for example
                  IG7005-ManagingGraphicObjects-02-PS-DB.odt.When the file is published, the filename does not
                    have a sequence numberor any initials added, for example
                  IG7005-ManagingGraphicObjects.odt.This does give a good indication of which file is
                    which and prevents thewrong file from being edited again. It worked very
                  well for me and a teamof technical writers.We will agree to disagree about folder names, but
                    still think Feedbackis the wrong name to use. A Published folder is a
                  definite.RegardsPeter Schofieldpsauthor@gmail.comOn 11 Sep 2020, at 16:18,
                      DaveBuser.net@posteo.netwrote:For the benefit of those who were not part of
                      yesterday's team meeting,or haven't yet read the minutes. I put forward a
                      proposal as per thesubject line of this post.A copy of my proposal is available from:https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/9FqwWK3m6Cy2zHQThe proposal has 5 points together with my
                      rational for the changes.If there are no reasonable objections, I propose
                      to start updating ourNextCloud instance on Friday, 18th. September.Best RegardsDave

Minor correction in terminology:
"other team members might wish to include some additional identification."
Should have read:
"other team members might wish to include some additional *or
alternative* identification."

Hi Dave, All

For the benefit of those who were not part of yesterday's team meeting,
or haven't yet read the minutes. I put forward a proposal as per the
subject line of this post.

A copy of my proposal is available from:
https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/9FqwWK3m6Cy2zHQ
The proposal has 5 points together with my rational for the changes.

If there are no reasonable objections, I propose to start updating our
NextCloud instance on Friday, 18th. September.

Best Regards
Dave

I'm bringing a new element to the discussion, related to Version control.

Our infra team added a Version Control plugin to NextCloud.

Each file in Nextcloud is version controlled, including our Guides and
guides components.

Details on the way to use it are in this link:

https://docs.nextcloud.com/server/stable/user_manual/files/version_control.html?highlight=version%20control

I think it can be considered in the proposed workflow changes

Kind regards

Hi Olivier, All

Yes we definitely could make use of the versioning system, but there
might be some unforeseen side issues.

Based on my couple of very rudimentary tests, it appears that the names
of the edited/revised and existing files must be 100% identical.
For example:
The *content* of the (fictitious) "GS7001-DB.odt" and "GS7001_DB.odt"
files could be identical, but the NextCloud versioning system would
identify them by the small filename difference as totally separate and
unrelated, so no version control would be applied.
Now if I download "GS7001-DB.odt" edit it and upload without changing
the file name the NextCloud versioning system works as expected.
Although NextCloud will challenge me about an existing file with and
identical name, every time I upload.

See the identical versioned and non-versioned test spreadsheets here:
https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/apps/files/?dir=/LibreOffice%20Documentation/English/Getting%20Started%20Guide/7.0&fileid=329928

I am happy to work with the version control system, but it might add a
little extra work for those who, like me, have a local naming procedure
for files on their own system.

There is a possibility confusion arising when it is forgotten that
previous and current filenames must be 100% identical.

I would like to hear the views of other contributors before I move any
further forward on the workflow changes.

Best Regards
Dave

Hello

From previous experience, I have always found that version control is prone to errors because it does need a strict regime for everybody to follow. We all have our way of naming files.

The present way of naming files for chapters in the user guides is good, for example IG7008-AddingFormattingSlidesNotes. All the filenames need, IMO is the version number adding to the filename, for example 01, 02 and so on. That way everybody can easily see which is the latest file to use. Version numbers are then removed from the filename when the chapters are published.

No matter what system is used, it needs a strict regime for all volunteers to follow.

Versioning works best when there are multiple contributors working the same document.

Regards

Peter Schofield
psauthor@gmail.com