I.e. changing the original from format X to format Y.
Unless the text has been improved, I see no reason to release a ‘new’ version.
This is a minor gripe but makes keeping track of improvements slightly more difficult.
This doesn’t mean people who actually improve the original (Layout/Proofing) and in the process change the format of the original. My personal preference is HTML, so if I proof something the improved version is very likely to be released as HTML.
1.1) RE-FORMATTERS/PROOFERS ETC, WHO REMOVE REVISION HISTORY
In the process they also remove the original version info, thus making it very difficult to trace back the updates or distinguish between versions that might be from two different sources. The end result is one v1.5 from a shitty scan which is actually a lot worse than a v1.1 where the original was carefully proofed in the first place.
This is a MAJOR gripe.
PLEASE RETAIN THE EXISTING REVISION HISTORY WHEN YOU
‘MODIFY’ THE DOCUMENT. CLEARLY MENTION WHAT HAS BEEN DONE
TO THE PREVIOUS VERSION TO JUSTIFY THE VERSION NUMBER INCREASE.
– FORMAT (If for some reason overpowering urge makes you release a ‘new’ version, at least indicate that the contents is _exactly_ the same, just the file format was changed) 1.2) RE-FORMATTERS/PROOFERS WHO SPLIT FILES
