filed its complaint within ten years of the district court’s original “rendition” of summary judgment for ARCO, and we AFFIRM the decision of the district court. 1 . This rule provides, in pertinent part: “Every judgment shall be set forth on a separate document. A judgment is effective only when so set forth and when entered as provided in Rule 79(a).” Fed.R.Civ.P. 58. Rule 79(a), in turn, provides (among other things) that the district court must keep a civil docket that shows the nature of all entries and the dates on which orders or judgments are entered. 2 . United States v. Indrelunas, 411 U.S. 216, 221-22, 93 S.Ct. 1562, 1564-65, 36 L.Ed.2d 202 (1973) (per curiam). But cf. Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis, 435 U.S. 381, 386, 98 S.Ct. 1117, 1120-21, 55 L.Ed.2d 357 (1978) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). 3 . Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U.S. 1, 13,
holding that a notice of appeal is timely when filed before final judgment is entered by the district court holding that lack of a separate judgment does not preclude the taking of an appeal from a district courts final decision because the parties may waive the separate judgment requirement where one has accidentally not been entered holding that a judgment set forth in a separate document is not a prerequisite to appellate jurisdiction where the parties assumed that there was a final judgment recognizing that a final judgment may exist even where no judgment has been entered in accordance with ocga  91158 b holding that court had jurisdiction where no separate judgment had been entered even though notice of appeal was not timely filed as measured from the final decision