Can Revision "A" file be changed to Numerical revision without loosing changes made in assembly and drawing?

[dm-4]

I have an assembly revised to Revision A and did many changes on assembly to reflect on drawing. Now I need Rev A file to be in numerical revision without loosing any changes made in Rev A assembly and drawing. Is it possible to do this in windchill?

Please do not suggest to take a backup and delete Rev A from windchill and overwrite it to next numerical revision. (Assembly has 1000+ parts in it).

Thank you.

This thread is inactive and closed by the PTC Community Management Team. If you would like to provide a reply and re-open this thread, please notify the moderator and reference the thread. You may also use "Start a topic" button to ask a new question. Please be sure to include what version of the PTC product you are using so another community member knowledgeable about your version may be able to assist.

[TomU]

Nope.  Not without some serious database hacking (which of course is not supported.)

[dnordin]

Depending on what revisions already exist, it may be possible.

Check the Specialized Admin Guide in the Changing the Revision of Objects section for a java utility for changing the rev.  There are restrictions in setting the revision backward depending on what already exists.

As a side question, why does the number of objects in your assembly file limit the ability to delete rev A from WC and re-submit the .asm and .drw files at the lower rev?  Regardless of the number of objects in your .asm file, you only need to export two files, the .asm file and .drw file, to the HD, delete rev A from WC, re-import the .asm and .drw files as modified into your WS, check them out, and check them back into WC at the lower rev.  The only potentially difficult part is deleting rev A from WC (because of dependencies, where it's used, etc.).

Regards,

Dan N.

[MikeLockwood]

Agree w/Daniel - have done this exact thing many times.

[TomU]

Interesting.  I guess I'm curious what his versioning scheme looks like.  From the doc:

The revision label you specify must be a label that is in the current versioning scheme in place for the object type.

Seems odd that he would be in an integer based scheme and then accidentally revise to alphabetic.