Autosave and versioning

Discussion in 'Apple' started by Michelle Steiner, Jan 9, 2012.

  1. I found this at the MacInTouch web site:

    Seth Elgart
    MacInTouch Reader asks:
    1. What happens to Versions when you open a file on a snow leopard Mac
    which was created on a Lion Mac?

    2. When you email a file made in lion to someone, does the version history
    ever go along as well so that the version feature can be utilized by the
    receiving party to review various edits?
    I've passed some files back and forth but I don't remember specifically
    what happens with the versions on older systems, or on other peoples'
    computers when you send a file.

    3. Is there a way to manually label past Versions, in addition to the
    default automatic time stamp, perhaps like "bookmarking" particular
    versions?
    Yes, you can in a sense label versions. You do this by doing a Save. These
    saved versions are sort of "keystone" versions. Each explicit save will
    always show up in your document's timeline, whereas all the thousands of
    autosaves may not. You can't give it a label with a name or anything, but
    each actual Save will be available in the document's timeline.

    4. Can you use Browse All Versions to pick a particular version and save
    just it, with a particular name, to a particular folder? Is it just as easy
    as opening it and "duplicating" it, while leaving the original copy in the
    Versions history untouched ?
    When you're browsing your timeline of versions you can pick one, and it
    will open side by side with the current version of the document. You can
    then duplicate the older version if you want to, just as if it were a
    "real" document.

    4. If a file is purposely deleted, do the versions still remain somewhere
    on the computer? Can they be accessed separately than from Time Machine?
    What? Another number 4?!? :)
    As far as the user is concerned, past versions are attached to the
    document. When you delete the document you delete all the versions.
    However, I'm not sure about the implications for file recovery programs,
    for example. The versions may live somewhere on your drive but they're not
    normally accessible without the actual file.

    5. Does Versions have the ability to save off a "final copy" of the file,
    ditching the history of edits? In other words, can you delete the version
    history of a particular file?
    Not to my knowledge. However, if you duplicate the file you should have a
    nice clean version with no history. Not 100% sure on this one, though.

    6. Does "option+drag in the finder" still work in Lion, in order to
    duplicate a file in that manner?
    Yes.

    7 If Auto Save saves a version every 5 minutes, is it possible, for
    example, to monitor the timing of its happening, in some way, so as to
    better predict when is the optimal time to make a purposeful save or
    "duplicate" which can be named? For example, if one knew that the last auto
    saved version contains the final edited version, there wouldn't be a need
    to purposefully save, and label a new redundant version.
    The short answer is "no." Autosave just works, and you can't necessarily
    monitor or change it. But, in some ways we're talking about this in the
    wrong way. It's not that there's a little guy in there that hits the Save
    button every 5 minutes. There aren't really any discrete saves that happen
    occasionally. Your document is always saved, after every word. In a word,
    you just don't ever have to save a document ever again. Well, except for
    the first time you create the document and want to give it a name. And even
    then autosaving still works, even for an unsaved document.

    8. In pre Lion OS, using the Save As command, I can open a graphics file in
    Preview or other application, view it, and then save it named with 3
    different suffix endings and file types, for example, jpeg - for web site,
    tiff - to the printer, and PDF - to my client, into 3 separate designated
    folders. What would be the most efficient corresponding work flow using
    Lion's new system?
    Well, in some ways that depends on the program and how they deal with it.
    What you're really talking about here is more of an export rather than
    strictly a save. If the program doesn't have an export command, you might
    have to do a Duplicate and then choose a file format when you save the new
    file. The new workflow for this situation is really controlled by the app.

    9. Is it true in the Lion system, that if you shut down a program, there is
    no longer a save dialog box presented before shutdown can occur, if changes
    have been made on a file? Can such a dialogue box be enabled? If not, it
    seems that the workaround would be to always save a purposeful version in
    the case that auto save missed your last edit before shutdown. Does this
    make sense?
    Yes, it's true. And no, there's no workaround for the "missing" dialog.
    It's not that it makes no sense, it's that saving is no longer really
    necessary (see my answer to number 7). When you quit a program that's
    autosave-compatible, that's it, everything's saved, end of story. In a way
    Lion is a new thing in the world and it uses a new paradigm. You really and
    truly don't ever have to think about saving at all anymore. If changes are
    made to a file, they're saved. That's it. (The one exception to this is for
    new documents. You have to save them once in order to give them a name and
    to also make a "physical" file.)
    I haven't done the destructo test yet, where you type a word and then pull
    the plug, but that might be fun to do just to see what happens. But under
    normal circumstances you just don't really ever have to save anymore.

    --
    Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as
    People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.
     
    1. Advertising

  2. Guest

    Michelle Steiner <> writes:

    > I found this at the MacInTouch web site:
    >
    > Seth Elgart
    > MacInTouch Reader asks:
    > 1. What happens to Versions when you open a file on a snow leopard Mac
    > which was created on a Lion Mac?


    Unfortunately, some of the good questions asked here aren't
    answered. I couldn't find this article anywhere, btw - do
    you have a link?

    Some very helpful information re: *where* are the Versions
    files stored:

    https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3237459?start=0&tstart=0

    My own observation: part of some of the answers there are
    wrong. Versions seem to be stored in a directory at the
    root level of the given filesystem, called .DocumentRevisions-V100,
    and additionally, a *backup* of a given file is made in the
    directory where the file itself lives. On SL, when I open a
    doc which was last edited on Lion under an auto-save/versions-aware
    program (ie. Pages), I simply see the most recent version. Back
    on SL, the file just behaves as it always had - Save As is
    available, the "Backup of ..." file is untouched, as is the
    history of the file's Versions.

    > 2. When you email a file made in lion to someone, does the version history
    > ever go along as well so that the version feature can be utilized by the
    > receiving party to review various edits?


    It shouldn't but I haven't tested this. You are mailing the most
    recent version only, as far as I can tell.

    My question: if the Versions live in the root directory of
    a given hard drive, and you copy the file to another hard
    drive, does the history come with it? In SL, since SL is
    unaware of the history, why would it? In Lion, it may, but
    I don't know.

    > 6. Does "option+drag in the finder" still work in Lion, in order to
    > duplicate a file in that manner?
    > Yes.


    Does the duplicate have a history?

    All under Lion:

    My experiment: no. I just created a file under Lion, aded
    a line, saved, added a line, saved, etc. a few times.

    I can browse the version history and see each of those saved
    versions (even though they were all saved in the space of a
    minute or so, there are several because I explicitly hit Save.)

    close the file. go to finder, cmd-D to duplicate the file,
    open the *duplicate*. Pages doesn't find Versions and goes
    instead to Time Machine (where there also aren't any older
    versions stored of course).

    Now, copy the original file to another hard drive. Open
    it up from the copy on the second hard drive. Pages still
    finds no Versions and heads to Time Machine (not finding
    any there, either).

    This last seems a bit dangerous. If you were relying
    on Versions, you cannot move the file to another hard drive.

    Am I missing something here?

    --
    Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
     
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    writes:

    > wrong. Versions seem to be stored in a directory at the
    > root level of the given filesystem, called .DocumentRevisions-V100,
    > and additionally, a *backup* of a given file is made in the
    > directory where the file itself lives. On SL, when I open a

    ....
    > Now, copy the original file to another hard drive. Open
    > it up from the copy on the second hard drive. Pages still
    > finds no Versions and heads to Time Machine (not finding
    > any there, either).
    >
    > This last seems a bit dangerous. If you were relying
    > on Versions, you cannot move the file to another hard drive.


    One more thing - which I couldn't experiment with because
    I have only one machine running Lion right now: If I save
    from a Versions-aware program in my DropBox folder, the
    Versions are maintained at the root of the drive on which
    my DropBox folder lives. If I open that file up on another
    computer which also uses DropBox - that other computer has
    the DropBox folder synced, but of course, not the root
    level of the hard drive -- the Versions history on the
    two computers will be different, even though the most
    recent saved copy of the file will always be kept in sync
    by DropBox.

    I imagine that some compromise had to be made re: where to
    store the Versions. If they were stored inside the file
    itself, all the copy/sync/etc might work - (maybe - depending
    on how it was structured - if there were hard links the way
    TimeMachine does it, syncing might make a mess of it) - but
    you'd lose any kind of backwards compatibility to pre-Lion
    software.

    In all, it seems like Apple is pushing into a new paradigm
    and that the whole thing, especially if folks have both
    Lion and older systems, is just a messy thing to try to get
    working. Kudos to Apple for giving it a shot, but my
    observation is that it's still got a ways to go. In the
    name of "it just works" there's a loss of transparency as
    to what's actually happening and what some of the implications
    of that are.

    I'm still pretty excited to have it, though, and am just
    going to have to treat it as a partial bonus and generally
    still do the same things I've always done - duplicate a file,
    time-stamp it in the file name, and work on the new copy
    generally. The nice thing is that I don't feel a need now
    to do this *every* time, only when I'm working on a major
    new revision.

    --
    Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
     
  4. John Young

    John Young Guest

    In article <-september.org>,
    Michelle Steiner <> wrote:

    >But under
    > normal circumstances you just don't really ever have to save anymore.


    I think I used Filemaker like this for many years and many versions. As
    I remember I would change a record and it was just changed.

    It's a good way to do things.

    I retired six years ago so don't remember all the ins and outs of
    Filemaker. Just for a kick, think of this. When we started using
    Filemaker it was on a Mac SE on a base that would swivel, two keyboards
    connected to the SE so the screen could face one of the two of us that
    used it. When I sold out FileMaker was running on about 10 networked
    machines. The company that now owns the business went to all PCs. I
    think it's a fairly complex system because the terminals in the VA store
    are actually dumb and all the computing is done in TX.
     
  5. In article <>,
    wrote:

    > > I found this at the MacInTouch web site:
    > >
    > > Seth Elgart
    > > MacInTouch Reader asks:
    > > 1. What happens to Versions when you open a file on a snow leopard Mac
    > > which was created on a Lion Mac?

    >
    > Unfortunately, some of the good questions asked here aren't answered. I
    > couldn't find this article anywhere, btw - do you have a link?


    <http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/lion/index.html#d09jan2012>

    --
    Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as
    People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.
     
  6. JF Mezei

    JF Mezei Guest

    wrote:
    >
    > In all, it seems like Apple is pushing into a new paradigm



    VMS has had versioning since the early 1980s. Hardly a new paradigm.

    And gues what, VMS's implementation doesn't try to hide versions from
    users and lets users manage how many versions of a file they wish to
    keep. All this from 1980s tech.

    Apple's implemetation is flawed because they tried too hard to make this
    "idiot proof" by hiding everything from the user.

    The saving of a file without user,s permission when you quit an app is a
    HUGE mistake.

    Bringing up this issue reminds me why I won't upgrade to Lion.
     
  7. In article <4f0b5671$0$2102$c3e8da3$>,
    JF Mezei <> wrote:

    > VMS has had versioning since the early 1980s. Hardly a new paradigm.
    >
    > And gues what, VMS's implementation doesn't try to hide versions from
    > users


    Nor does Apple's.

    > Apple's implemetation is flawed because they tried too hard to make this
    > "idiot proof" by hiding everything from the user.


    Hiding what? Choose "Revert Document" from the File menu, and you get all
    previous versions to choose from.

    > The saving of a file without user,s permission when you quit an app is a
    > HUGE mistake.


    In your opinion.

    --
    Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as
    People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.
     
  8. Guest

    JF Mezei <> writes:
    > wrote:


    >> In all, it seems like Apple is pushing into a new paradigm


    > VMS has had versioning since the early 1980s. Hardly a new paradigm.


    It certainly is for an OS meant to be deployed to and used by
    the average person for everyday stuff.

    > Apple's implemetation is flawed because they tried too hard to make this
    > "idiot proof" by hiding everything from the user.


    I'm sure it just needs some work. As I demonstrated with my
    experiments, you're right - there are things which happen which
    are just not obviously to be expected by a user. One in particular,
    the act of copying a file, whether on the same hard drive or to
    another hard drive - does NOT preserve the file's version history.
    The thing is that there is inherently complexity and compromises
    to be made. If the act of copying the file always included the
    history, that has other potentially negative implications - do
    you or do you not want the history copied? Do you always want it
    or never or sometimes? And if sometimes, how to you choose?

    I'm not sure "flaw" is the right word. Compromise and an
    evolving interface as people and developers get to understand
    the implications is essential. This is a start.

    > The saving of a file without user,s permission when you quit an app is a
    > HUGE mistake.


    Seriously? Many applications/systems save data on the fly as
    you enter it. Most databases, for example.

    The thing is that with auto-save, (a) you also automatically
    have a back-up; and (b) if used in conjunction with Versions,
    you also have the ability to roll back to any saved version,
    especially ones you explicitly saved.

    As I said, I *still* have every intention of copying and
    tagging with dates at milestones. But Versions is a nice
    *addition* to that, not a replacement. And auto-save, I'll
    bet, will save a lot more people's asses than it harms.

    > Bringing up this issue reminds me why I won't upgrade to Lion.


    It takes some getting used to, that's all. I'm still working
    on it. I've moved to Lion on one out of three machines I use
    daily and I'm quite pleased overall. I'll likely be moving
    the second machine forward soon, too (and the third machine
    cannot be - SL is the end of the line for that ancient piece
    of hardware).

    --
    Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
     
  9. Guest

    Michelle Steiner <> writes:
    > JF Mezei <> wrote:


    >> And gues what, VMS's implementation doesn't try to hide versions from
    >> users

    >
    > Nor does Apple's.


    It kind of does. Not in the sense that if you're using a Versions
    compatible program, editing a file which lives on the drive on which
    you first started working on it - then you're right - you just go
    and hit the versions viewer and you can see the time-machine history
    of the file.

    But it does hide the Versions in that (a) the user doesn't necessarily
    have any idea where the old versions of the file live and (b) the user
    can easily lose the whole file's history by simply moving it to another
    drive somewhere -- which, aren't we all doing all the time when we
    make back-up copies?

    >> The saving of a file without user,s permission when you quit an app is a
    >> HUGE mistake.

    >
    > In your opinion.


    I can see where it's potentially a bit annoying - I often open
    up documents to look at them and maybe play with the numbers and
    I don't want these changes saved. Having to carefully remember
    to revert the document is annoying - it's the opposite of the
    behavior and training we've all had for so long. And if you do
    go and edit a file and close it - and it gets auto-saved, sure
    you can revert it back a version by opening up and scanning the
    history until you find the version you wanted -- unless you've
    gone and moved the file to another drive since then in which case
    you're screwed.

    But overall, I think it's almost certainly a good thing and
    folks who open files and don't mean to keep the changes need
    to change their behavior a little bit to accomodate this. The
    up-side looks a lot bigger than the downside. More folks lose
    work because they forgot to save, I think, than will mess up
    their work because they forget to revert.

    --
    Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
     
  10. In article <>,
    wrote:

    > >> And gues what, VMS's implementation doesn't try to hide versions from
    > >> users

    > >
    > > Nor does Apple's.

    >
    > It kind of does. Not in the sense that if you're using a Versions
    > compatible program, editing a file which lives on the drive on which you
    > first started working on it - then you're right - you just go and hit
    > the versions viewer and you can see the time-machine history of the
    > file.
    >
    > But it does hide the Versions in that (a) the user doesn't necessarily
    > have any idea where the old versions of the file live


    Is that really necessary? With the versions viewer, you can find them, so
    why does it matter where they live on the disk?

    > and (b) the user can easily lose the whole file's history by simply
    > moving it to another drive somewhere -- which, aren't we all doing all
    > the time when we make back-up copies?


    Time machine backups keep the versions, and so would cloning backups. And
    I'm sure that backup utilities, if they don't already backup versions, they
    soon will.

    I just do not see it as a major issue, if an issue at all.

    -- Michelle

    --
    Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as
    People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.
     
  11. In article <>,
    wrote:

    > I'm sure it just needs some work. As I demonstrated with my
    > experiments, you're right - there are things which happen which
    > are just not obviously to be expected by a user. One in particular,
    > the act of copying a file, whether on the same hard drive or to
    > another hard drive - does NOT preserve the file's version history.


    True, the versions are not copied along with the document, but then again,
    the duplicate document is an entirely new document with its own history.
    If you make changes in the original document, should versioning affect the
    copy? If you make changes in the copy, should versioning affect the
    original?

    Furthermore, whenever you save a document (in certain apps), you
    automatically create a backup of the previously expressly saved version if
    you have that preference enabled.

    -- Michelle

    --
    Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as
    People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.
     
  12. Guest

    Michelle Steiner <> writes:
    > In article <>,
    > wrote:


    >> But it does hide the Versions in that (a) the user doesn't necessarily
    >> have any idea where the old versions of the file live

    >
    > Is that really necessary? With the versions viewer, you can find them, so
    > why does it matter where they live on the disk?


    Of course it matters. Precisely because you *can't* always find them -
    try copying your Documents folder to, say, an external hard drive so
    you can move them to another computer. Bam - all your Versions are
    gone.

    >> and (b) the user can easily lose the whole file's history by simply
    >> moving it to another drive somewhere -- which, aren't we all doing all
    >> the time when we make back-up copies?

    >
    > Time machine backups keep the versions, and so would cloning backups. And
    > I'm sure that backup utilities, if they don't already backup versions, they
    > soon will.


    As I said, it's a matter of evolution and gaining in understanding.

    And, yes, why wouldn't one want a copy of the history of a file,
    via versions, when making a copy of the file itself? There should
    be some kind of option and right now there is not.

    The connection between a document and its history is opaque - Apple
    wants us not to have to think about it - it's just there. But that's
    only partially true. It is just there - except when it isn't.

    (And Time Machine is orthogonal - it's not Versions, even though
    it sometimes looks a lot like it).

    > I just do not see it as a major issue, if an issue at all.


    It's probably not an issue for someone with only one computer,
    only one hard drive, and little interest in the Versions once
    they've finished working on whatever document they are working
    on. It's a *temporary* means of tracking a document's history,
    not an archive of any sort. That's okay, so long as we all
    know that that's what it is. Nevertheless, it would be nice
    if we had a way to attach a file's history to it when moving
    it or syncing it.

    I don't know from "major" vs "minor" but it *has* issues
    and users of it need to understand, at least, when they won't
    have their history.

    --
    Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
     
  13. Wes Groleau

    Wes Groleau Guest

    On 01-09-2012 15:23, wrote:
    > store the Versions. If they were stored inside the file
    > itself, all the copy/sync/etc might work - (maybe - depending
    > on how it was structured - if there were hard links the way
    > TimeMachine does it, syncing might make a mess of it) - but
    > you'd lose any kind of backwards compatibility to pre-Lion
    > software.


    If they were stored in a resource fork, they would stay with the file in
    certain types of transfers, yet other systems would still get the latest.

    --
    Wes Groleau

    Why “The Blind Dog Leading†?
    http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/BlindDog?itemid=3569
     
  14. nospam

    nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    <> wrote:

    > >> But it does hide the Versions in that (a) the user doesn't necessarily
    > >> have any idea where the old versions of the file live

    > >
    > > Is that really necessary? With the versions viewer, you can find them, so
    > > why does it matter where they live on the disk?

    >
    > Of course it matters. Precisely because you *can't* always find them -
    > try copying your Documents folder to, say, an external hard drive so
    > you can move them to another computer. Bam - all your Versions are
    > gone.


    three questions come to mind, and i'm curious to know what happens in
    these scenarios (i have no way to test it at the moment):

    - will cloning the drive with superduper maintain version history of
    all documents? a clone causes time machine to copy everything.

    - will migration assistant migrate documents and the version history to
    a new mac?

    - what happens if the drive crashes and you restore from a time machine
    backup. will the version history be restored too?
     
  15. In article <4f0b5671$0$2102$c3e8da3$>,
    JF Mezei <> wrote:

    > wrote:
    > >
    > > In all, it seems like Apple is pushing into a new paradigm

    >
    >
    > VMS has had versioning since the early 1980s. Hardly a new paradigm.


    The new paradigm isn't just versioning, it's the fact that it's totally
    automatic. You're not editing a copy of the file, you're effectively
    editing the file directly.

    VMS (and all the other OSes with file versions: e.g. ITS, TOPS-10,
    TOPS-20, Genera) requires you to explicitly save each new version.

    >
    > And gues what, VMS's implementation doesn't try to hide versions from
    > users and lets users manage how many versions of a file they wish to
    > keep. All this from 1980s tech.
    >
    > Apple's implemetation is flawed because they tried too hard to make this
    > "idiot proof" by hiding everything from the user.
    >
    > The saving of a file without user,s permission when you quit an app is a
    > HUGE mistake.


    The whole point is that it saves continuously as you work on the file.
    Quitting is just another snapshot, just like all the ones it had been
    making. Why do you think you need a question then, if you didn't need
    one 5 minutes before?

    If you decide that you want to throw away all you've done, you just go
    back to an earlier version.

    --
    Barry Margolin,
    Arlington, MA
    *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
     
  16. In article <>,
    wrote:

    > >> But it does hide the Versions in that (a) the user doesn't
    > >> necessarily have any idea where the old versions of the file live

    > >
    > > Is that really necessary? With the versions viewer, you can find
    > > them, so why does it matter where they live on the disk?

    >
    > Of course it matters. Precisely because you *can't* always find them -
    > try copying your Documents folder to, say, an external hard drive so you
    > can move them to another computer. Bam - all your Versions are gone.


    Why would I do that instead of using migration assistant or time machine?

    > And, yes, why wouldn't one want a copy of the history of a file, via
    > versions, when making a copy of the file itself? There should be some
    > kind of option and right now there is not.
    >
    > The connection between a document and its history is opaque - Apple
    > wants us not to have to think about it - it's just there. But that's
    > only partially true. It is just there - except when it isn't.


    You mean like in earlier versions of Mac OS, when there wasn't anything
    even resembling versions? If you wanted to keep intermediate copies of a
    document, you had to use Save As or Save a Copy As.

    > > I just do not see it as a major issue, if an issue at all.

    >
    > It's probably not an issue for someone with only one computer,
    > only one hard drive, and little interest in the Versions once
    > they've finished working on whatever document they are working
    > on.


    Then it's not an issue at all.

    > It's a *temporary* means of tracking a document's history, not an
    > archive of any sort. That's okay, so long as we all know that that's
    > what it is. Nevertheless, it would be nice if we had a way to attach a
    > file's history to it when moving it or syncing it.


    Make up your mind; is it temporary or something you want to attach when
    moving or syncing it?

    > I don't know from "major" vs "minor" but it *has* issues
    > and users of it need to understand, at least, when they won't
    > have their history.


    They'll have their history unless they go out of their way to destroy it.

    --
    Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as
    People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.
     
  17. Wes Groleau

    Wes Groleau Guest

    On 01-09-2012 19:51, wrote:
    > And, yes, why wouldn't one want a copy of the history of a file,
    > via versions, when making a copy of the file itself? There should


    Maybe because I don't want versions at all?

    When I need version control on a file, I put it in a version control
    system. When I don't need it, I don't waste disk space and CPU cycles
    doing so.

    --
    Wes Groleau

    “A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, and as a
    firm and unalterable experience has established these laws,
    the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact,
    is as entire as could possibly be imagined.â€
    — David Hume, age 37
    “There's no such thing of that, 'cause I never heard of it.â€
    — Becky Groleau, age 4
     
  18. Guest

    Michelle Steiner <> writes:
    > In article <>,
    > wrote:


    >> Of course it matters. Precisely because you *can't* always find them -
    >> try copying your Documents folder to, say, an external hard drive so you
    >> can move them to another computer. Bam - all your Versions are gone.

    >
    > Why would I do that instead of using migration assistant or time machine?


    You always use migration assistant to move a file somewhere?

    That's bizarre. I move files by putting them on external
    drives that I just plug in. I sometimes move them by copying
    them across network fileshares. I sometimes FTP them. I
    move them in a whole long variety of ways -- every one of
    which, with the exception of, apparently, a full-disk-restore
    or machine migration kills off Versions.

    >> The connection between a document and its history is opaque - Apple
    >> wants us not to have to think about it - it's just there. But that's
    >> only partially true. It is just there - except when it isn't.

    >
    > You mean like in earlier versions of Mac OS, when there wasn't anything
    > even resembling versions? If you wanted to keep intermediate copies of a
    > document, you had to use Save As or Save a Copy As.


    It wasn't opaque - it was non-existent. You had to go out of
    your way to keep file histories. Versions doesn't change
    that, unfortunately. A user has to know when he can rely
    on Versions and when he can't. Experimentation has shown
    that pretty much unless the file remains on the drive on
    which you created it, you can't. I find this unfortunate.

    >> It's a *temporary* means of tracking a document's history, not an
    >> archive of any sort. That's okay, so long as we all know that that's


    > Make up your mind; is it temporary or something you want to attach when
    > moving or syncing it?


    My mind is made up. Versions is not what I'd thought or
    hoped it would be. That's all.


    >> I don't know from "major" vs "minor" but it *has* issues
    >> and users of it need to understand, at least, when they won't
    >> have their history.

    >
    > They'll have their history unless they go out of their way to destroy it.


    Absolutely not - things which most folks consider completely
    innocuous - like moving a file to another drive - destroy it.


    --
    Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
     
  19. In article <>,
    wrote:

    > >> Of course it matters. Precisely because you *can't* always find them -
    > >> try copying your Documents folder to, say, an external hard drive so you
    > >> can move them to another computer. Bam - all your Versions are gone.

    > >
    > > Why would I do that instead of using migration assistant or time machine?

    >
    > You always use migration assistant to move a file somewhere?


    You wrote "copy your documents"; to me that means the entire document
    folder. The only time I'm going to move all my documents to another
    computer is when I'm moving everything to another computer, so yes, I'll
    use MA and/or TM.

    > >> The connection between a document and its history is opaque - Apple
    > >> wants us not to have to think about it - it's just there. But that's
    > >> only partially true. It is just there - except when it isn't.

    > >
    > > You mean like in earlier versions of Mac OS, when there wasn't
    > > anything even resembling versions? If you wanted to keep intermediate
    > > copies of a document, you had to use Save As or Save a Copy As.

    >
    > It wasn't opaque - it was non-existent. You had to go out of your way
    > to keep file histories. Versions doesn't change that, unfortunately. A
    > user has to know when he can rely on Versions and when he can't.
    > Experimentation has shown that pretty much unless the file remains on
    > the drive on which you created it, you can't. I find this unfortunate.


    I don't go moving my documents around from machine to machine; I don't see
    any point in doing so unless I'm replacing a machine with another one.

    > >> It's a *temporary* means of tracking a document's history, not an
    > >> archive of any sort. That's okay, so long as we all know that that's

    >
    > > Make up your mind; is it temporary or something you want to attach
    > > when moving or syncing it?

    >
    > My mind is made up. Versions is not what I'd thought or hoped it would
    > be. That's all.


    That's the crux of the matter; it's not what you want, so it's therefore
    Apple's fault. Nevermind that it works for the vast majority of people who
    use Lion. It does what it's supposed to do, not what you want it to do.

    > >> I don't know from "major" vs "minor" but it *has* issues and users of
    > >> it need to understand, at least, when they won't have their history.

    > >
    > > They'll have their history unless they go out of their way to destroy
    > > it.

    >
    > Absolutely not - things which most folks consider completely innocuous -
    > like moving a file to another drive - destroy it.


    Under what circumstances would a user want to move a file to another drive
    and need the entire version history? Especially considering that under
    previous versions of the OS, that wasn't an issue to begin with because
    there was no such thing as versioning?

    --
    Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as
    People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.
     
  20. Guest

    Michelle Steiner <> writes:
    > In article <>,
    > wrote:


    >> My mind is made up. Versions is not what I'd thought or hoped it would
    >> be. That's all.

    >
    > That's the crux of the matter; it's not what you want, so it's therefore
    > Apple's fault. Nevermind that it works for the vast majority of people who


    Did I say anything about "fault"? You have a weird need to
    defend Apple even when Apple's not being attacked. I'm simply
    making some observations about Versions. It didn't do what
    I expected. I'm guessing that "the vast majority of people"
    have no idea about Versions in the first place, so whether
    it works for them or not, we don't know. Apple has certainly
    not done a great job explaining what happens when people do
    normal everyday things in the context of Versions - like
    e-mailing a file, moving it, using it from different machines
    with different versions of the OS. I had to figure these
    things out via experimentation.

    > use Lion. It does what it's supposed to do, not what you want it to do.


    My point is that it wasn't obvious what it's supposed to do,
    nor what to expect of it. "It keeps versions" is the short
    overview. That's not enough, not by itself.

    > Under what circumstances would a user want to move a file to another drive
    > and need the entire version history? Especially considering that under


    Under the same circumstances when they'd want the entire
    version history on the drive where they made the file in
    the first place. I work on a document on whichever machine
    I'm working at - my laptop, either of my desktops. I would
    like my version history no matter where I work on my
    document. Is there I reason I shouldn't expect it? Apparently,
    the reason is simply that that's not the way Apple designed it.

    I think the deeper reason is that versioning is complex and
    the implications of a given implementation - and there are
    lots of potential implementations - are being glossed over
    in the name of simplicity. There are always compromises to be
    made in cases like this. There's no "fault" involved. Just
    a matter, perhaps, of me having the wrong expectations.

    Either way, the issue of histories and the moving/copying of
    documents was not obvious. Now that I've done my experimenting,
    I won't be surprised when my version histories disappear, nor
    will I count on them other than in the very short term. That
    means that for me, for the most part, it's not very useful
    and I just have to keep doing what I've always done.


    --
    Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
     
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Squigmont
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    402
    Squigmont
    Feb 12, 2006
  2. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    Dell and shipping and confusion and little white lies.

    Steven C \(Doktersteve\), Dec 6, 2003, in forum: Dell
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    381
    WSZsr
    Dec 6, 2003
  3. Mr. Big
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    356
    Bostjan
    Oct 20, 2003
  4. darkknight

    crc for versioning

    darkknight, Oct 6, 2005, in forum: Embedded
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    316
    Not Really Me
    Oct 10, 2005
  5. EMRhelp.org
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    257
    EMRhelp.org
    Feb 26, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page