Forum Discussion
question about publishing files
louise1575 - Note tommy's screenshot and compare your library settings. In fact, grab a full screenshot of this settings page (library settings > versioning) and post it. But basically, sounds like that first setting is set to 'yes' which would mean only approver level permissions can publish. There could be additional factors at play such as require checkout and required columns which might complicate when you actually see the publish button.
tommy1973 wrote:
PittSharePointPro Thanks Scott.
The screen grab of the settings is below. One other thing is that if you publish using the "Publish" link at the top of the screen you don't get the dialogue box to add comments but you do if you publish via the document properties menu.
The screen grab of the settings is below. One other thing is that if you publish using the "Publish" link at the top of the screen you don't get the dialogue box to add comments but you do if you publish via the document properties menu.Thanks for sharing! I was under the impression that you weren't seeing a publish button even though the system was prompting you to publish. Sorry for the confusion there!
So everything that I'm seeing and hearing is 'normal' here for the settings that you're showing me, including the version comments not displaying on multiple file publishing. This is all designed behavior as far as I can tell.
To recap with your settings (to the best of my knowledge):
- The system will prompt to publish drafts (at least in the information panel, possibly other locations)
- Even though a prompt to publish drafts indicates otherwise, anyone with view permissions can 'see' minor version (based off your screenshot settings - there could be broken inheritance permissions and/or item level permissions in play)
- Anyone with edit permissions can view and publish (or unpublish) to a major version
- There are no technical mechanisms in place to prevent publishing, even if a document isn't 'approved' to be published (this is the 'required content approval' bit set to 'no')
- Publishing more than 1 document will not prompt for version comments
PittSharePointPro : as good as the conversation is here, it does not solve my problem, or the original poster's problem. We use minor versioning on files only because it allows for greater historical 'reach' and a better understanding of file changes, though in most libraries 'major' versions are only published when we get to the limit of minor versions. And all users have complete permissions, so it's not due to restrictions.
I'd call it a bug if it weren't for the fact that most users have worked out that they can ignore the (False) message, and carry on. Sadly, though, it diminishes the credibility of SharePoint for those users.I appear to be possibly responding to two-three nuanced use cases on this single thread! There appears to not actually be any 'technical' problems but rather complaints of MS language. So I'll wrap up:
MAJOR ONLY
If a major version doesn't denote a 'milestone' in some fashion that is uniquely different from minor version, then I would disable minor versioning. And major only is obviously the 'simpler' of the two for our beloved users - make a change, new version. 'Comments' in the info panel, while seemingly still buried for doc libraries, I think is an added benefit to help replace version history comments which are definitely buried. I suspect these comments will be surfaced in more meaningful ways in the months ahead.
MAJOR/MINOR....BUT
Minor versioning enabled is fine as we discussed except for the 'publish to update changes' is poorly written/misleading for this specific use case. This is likely because I think the core intended use of minor versioning is more formalized as described below and then the language becomes spot on. So you'd have to set expectations for the users. Not to mention stay on top of it because the language could change (assuming you're using SPO). Other than that quirky language, I think enabling minor versioning situation that you have works just fine. I'd also go to user-voice and see if there are any similar complaints.
'VALID' MAJOR/MINOR
In my experience, I only ever recommended minor versioning to clients that wanted to use the major versions as 'milestones' or 'authoritative' in a more formalized setting; whereas minor versions are only drafts in the true sense of the word. The editing team analyzes and/or makes their updates then submits for approval. After managerial review, they click publish. Perhaps they are the only ones that can approve. From that perspective, the publishing language is in fact accurate when certain users can only see the major version and not the minor. This is one of my 'valid' business use cases for minor versioning.
