Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Search instead for
Did you mean:
The Community Team is working with PTC Product Management to provide status updates to ideas in all the PTC Community Idea boards.
To learn about status descriptions, please visit Community Announcements
In Windchill (v9.1 and v10.2 at least, possibly earlier), in the Preference Manager, under the Revise category, there is an option for "Allow Override on Revise". This allows the user to specify any revision (after the current revision, one cannot go backwards) when revising an object. For example, If you are revising a Revision B, you could not go back to A, but you could jump directly to M, N, or O. If you are currently using a file-based or state-based versioning schema where some of your revisions are flagged for 'legacy="true"', this option will also allow you to manually set the revision to a legacy revision. This has been described as "working as intended". In our situation, we sometimes have to migrate data in without a through clean-up being possible. This means that our schema must contain I, O, Q, S, X, and Z in the schema, but we do not want users to be able to select them after the initial migration of objects into Windchill. We set those revisions in our schema as legacy revisions by using the legacy="true" flag. Our suggestion is to add an overrideable warning that would occur if the following are true: The Preference Manager > Revise > Allow Override on Revise = Yes File-based or State-based versioning is being used Users attempt to revise an object and manually input a state where the legacy="true" flag is set in the versioning schema The warning would warn the user that the version that they have selected is intended for legacy purposes only, and would then presumably ask them if they want to reset the revision: If the user answers "yes" (they want to change the revision), they will be brought back to the Revise window. If they fail to change the revision, or they change it to another legacy revision, the warning will repeat. If the user answers "no" (they do not want to change the revision), the object will be revised to the legacy revision.
... View more
The feature "forceContentToVault=true" is very usefull for external vaulting and specialy for CAD objects which are big in general. But when you used this feature you are oblige to have only ONE master vault as default target. Ok why not !
Now take an "old" system which is working since several years and pass through several Windchill version where the "automatic folder creation" did not exist. This system have the capability to used the "forceContentToVault=true" without any issue BUT CAN NOT used the "automatic folder creation" due to unique "master vault", Why this restriction ?
It is unrealistic to do a revaulting when you have more than 20 TB of data split in more than 50 billions of files. So the capability to design a new root folder with is our master vault as a new default target could be possible. Of course all previous master vault and folders pass to readonly mode.
What we need is to avoid to usage of a "cache vault" which is not need. We want to go directly to the new target master vault without any rules.
When you start from scratch, you have the capability to have several "root folders" when the capability of the previous one is full, you move to another one and so on...
Why we can not have the same but old one Master Vault used "manual folder creation" and then a new Master Vault with "Root folders" ? Hope it is enough clear.
For the moment we are oblige to manage the folder creation to avoid big issue. That's why "Root folders" have been created !
... View more