3 ms·

The version history is stored by the file system and not by the file itself. If you copy the document you don't store any of the version history and you can't r

The version history is stored by the file system and not by the file itself. If you copy the document you don't store any of the version history and you can't revert (from my experience). Also, if you send the file to someone they get the latest changes, they don't get any history... the history is snapshots made by the OS much like Time Machine does for backups, except it is done every so often automatically (auto save) and not to an external drive. The only real cock-up is the Save As. Save As should save the new file, and revert the old file back to what it originally was (the last time I explicitly saved, not the spot that auto save last saved). If you want to modify a copy of the file, before you start your modifications you simply choose File -> Duplicate and it opens the same document but with a different name. When you save that one it will have an entirely new history associated with it. The fact that it is a file system feature that is baked into the OS means that all apps can take advantage of it if they want and the overhead is small. It also means that apps no longer need to keep notes about what modifications were done to what, instead being able to rely on the auto save feature. The other nice thing is that since it is not part of the document and is outside of it, data leakage is much less of an issue than with other file formats such as Microsoft Word where recovering previous text is rather simple and can lead to data leaking that you wouldn't want leaking.

ktizo 14y ago
If you want to modify a copy of the file, before you start your modifications you simply choose File -> Duplicate and it opens the same document but with a different name. What if you only decide that you want to save as a different file after you are half way through your modifications?
- pyre 14y ago
  That's not the Apple Way(tm). Please conform to the Apple Way(tm) when interacting with all Apple-branded devices please. ;-)
  - batista 14y ago
    Yes, very intelligent.
- jkestner 14y ago
  When you choose Duplicate on an edited file, you're given the option to Duplicate and Revert the original file. Handy.
  - X-Istence 14y ago
    That is not the case, at least not with TextEdit ... when you choose Duplicate you get two files with the same contents. You can then save the duplicate as you wish, and revert the old one back to when it was opened using File -> Revert -> Last Open.
  - rsfinn 14y ago
    That's how it worked in Lion, but Mountain Lion behaves differently -- you get the duplicate with its file name selected, so you can rename it, but the original stays modified unless you think to immediately pick "Revert to last saved version". I actually liked the Lion behavior better. (Now I wish I'd had the chance to try out the Mountain Lion beta before release, so I could have filed a bug for this.) That's what we get for everyone complaining about the lack of "Save As"...
- X-Istence 14y ago
  Hit File -> Duplicate ... save the new copy as a different file name, in the original File -> Revert -> Last Opened. Now your Duplicate contains all of the new stuff, and your old file contains all of the old stuff. Duplicate and Revert Original should be an option, unfortunately it isn't.
- rat87 14y ago
  File -> Rename/Move File ?
pyre 14y ago
> If you want to modify a copy of the file, > before you start your modifications you simply > choose File -> Duplicate and it opens the same > document but with a different name. When you > save that one it will have an entirely new > history associated with it. An entirely new history? Doesn't that kind of suck? It would be preferable to have the copy also retain history prior to duplication. > The fact that it is a file system feature that > is baked into the OS means that all apps can > take advantage of it if they want and the > overhead is small. It also means that apps no > longer need to keep notes about what > modifications were done to what, instead being > able to rely on the auto save feature. It also means it is non-portable, and you can lose this history when backing things up (unless you only use Time Machine for backups presumably). > The other nice thing is that since it is not > part of the document and is outside of it, > data leakage is much less of an issue than > with other file formats such as Microsoft Word > where recovering previous text is rather > simple and can lead to data leaking that you > wouldn't want leaking. I'll agree with this. Maybe the middle ground is something similar to OS X's metadata dot-files (i.e. ._.filename). I think one of the biggest issues I take with it is that by making it a part of the document editor itself, you make it seem (to the user) as if it's a feature of the application/format, and not a feature of the operating system that has just been integrated into the application. Without any other sort of explanation the user will probably assume that this is all stored in the document, and be in for a surprize when they copy it somewhere else, and the history disappears.
- X-Istence 14y ago
  > An entirely new history? Doesn't that kind of suck? It would be preferable to have the copy also retain history prior to duplication. Then the application and the file format should probably have a way of storing older texts by itself, much like Microsoft Word. Although you do lose the data leakage protection. If I make a Duplicate of an image or file I generally want that as my starting point and not have the entire version history copied as well. > It also means it is non-portable, and you can lose this history when backing things up (unless you only use Time Machine for backups presumably). Yes, it is non-portable. For those apps where that is an issue there is always the choice of baking it into the file format itself. As for backing it up, you are able to back-up /.DocumentRevisions-V100/ along with everything else you back-up. This is where auto-save saves the files, and its various versions. > I'll agree with this. Maybe the middle ground is something similar to OS X's metadata dot-files (i.e. ._.filename). No, please for the love of all that is holy please do not drop more ._.crap in my directory trees. Some of us still live and breath command line or connect to various non-Mac OS X machines and seeing those files everywhere is extremely annoying. As for better user education on Versions, I'll agree with that one hundred percent. The functionality is provided free of charge to developers using NSDocument (from reading other peoples threads on this HN thread) and thus does require some help from the program, if they read/write using POSIX they won't get free support for it.
FixThisPOSSite 14y ago
"you simply choose File -> Duplicate" Standard smug, bullshit answer whenever glaring design defects are brought up in Apple products. Nice condescension with "you simply." No, you don't "simply" do this, because there is no way for the user to guess the defective turn of events that's about to happen. Not to mention that the "Save As" option might as well not exist. The fact that Apple allows hidden, secret menus that are only revealed by pressing unindicated modifier keys disproves the myth of Apple's "elegance" and "attention to detail." Apple continually chooses the most cumbersome, error-prone, and idiotically roundabout solutions to simple problems. In this case, there WAS no problem. How many layers of shit are they going to heap onto this OS? Time Machine was supposed to solve data-loss problems. Now we have a bloated, system-wide, redundant overseer for files. And sure enough, it causes data loss. Not only in this example here (which most people will never encounter because there is still, essentially, no "Save As" option) but also in regular usage. Xcode developers have had chunks of their source files simply disappear, followed by a prompt claiming that an external application modified the file. There are so many things for Apple to fix (such as the disgraceful Finder), and they're not only wasting time loading the OS up with garbage like this, but wasting users' time by destroying their data.

ktizo 14y ago

If you want to modify a copy of the file, before you start your modifications you simply choose File -> Duplicate and it opens the same document but with a different name. What if you only decide that you want to save as a different file after you are half way through your modifications?

pyre 14y ago
That's not the Apple Way(tm). Please conform to the Apple Way(tm) when interacting with all Apple-branded devices please. ;-)
- batista 14y ago
  Yes, very intelligent.
jkestner 14y ago
When you choose Duplicate on an edited file, you're given the option to Duplicate and Revert the original file. Handy.
- X-Istence 14y ago
  That is not the case, at least not with TextEdit ... when you choose Duplicate you get two files with the same contents. You can then save the duplicate as you wish, and revert the old one back to when it was opened using File -> Revert -> Last Open.
- rsfinn 14y ago
  That's how it worked in Lion, but Mountain Lion behaves differently -- you get the duplicate with its file name selected, so you can rename it, but the original stays modified unless you think to immediately pick "Revert to last saved version". I actually liked the Lion behavior better. (Now I wish I'd had the chance to try out the Mountain Lion beta before release, so I could have filed a bug for this.) That's what we get for everyone complaining about the lack of "Save As"...
X-Istence 14y ago
Hit File -> Duplicate ... save the new copy as a different file name, in the original File -> Revert -> Last Opened. Now your Duplicate contains all of the new stuff, and your old file contains all of the old stuff. Duplicate and Revert Original should be an option, unfortunately it isn't.
rat87 14y ago
File -> Rename/Move File ?

pyre 14y ago

> If you want to modify a copy of the file, > before you start your modifications you simply > choose File -> Duplicate and it opens the same > document but with a different name. When you > save that one it will have an entirely new > history associated with it. An entirely new history? Doesn't that kind of suck? It would be preferable to have the copy also retain history prior to duplication. > The fact that it is a file system feature that > is baked into the OS means that all apps can > take advantage of it if they want and the > overhead is small. It also means that apps no > longer need to keep notes about what > modifications were done to what, instead being > able to rely on the auto save feature. It also means it is non-portable, and you can lose this history when backing things up (unless you only use Time Machine for backups presumably). > The other nice thing is that since it is not > part of the document and is outside of it, > data leakage is much less of an issue than > with other file formats such as Microsoft Word > where recovering previous text is rather > simple and can lead to data leaking that you > wouldn't want leaking. I'll agree with this. Maybe the middle ground is something similar to OS X's metadata dot-files (i.e. ._.filename). I think one of the biggest issues I take with it is that by making it a part of the document editor itself, you make it seem (to the user) as if it's a feature of the application/format, and not a feature of the operating system that has just been integrated into the application. Without any other sort of explanation the user will probably assume that this is all stored in the document, and be in for a surprize when they copy it somewhere else, and the history disappears.

X-Istence 14y ago
> An entirely new history? Doesn't that kind of suck? It would be preferable to have the copy also retain history prior to duplication. Then the application and the file format should probably have a way of storing older texts by itself, much like Microsoft Word. Although you do lose the data leakage protection. If I make a Duplicate of an image or file I generally want that as my starting point and not have the entire version history copied as well. > It also means it is non-portable, and you can lose this history when backing things up (unless you only use Time Machine for backups presumably). Yes, it is non-portable. For those apps where that is an issue there is always the choice of baking it into the file format itself. As for backing it up, you are able to back-up /.DocumentRevisions-V100/ along with everything else you back-up. This is where auto-save saves the files, and its various versions. > I'll agree with this. Maybe the middle ground is something similar to OS X's metadata dot-files (i.e. ._.filename). No, please for the love of all that is holy please do not drop more ._.crap in my directory trees. Some of us still live and breath command line or connect to various non-Mac OS X machines and seeing those files everywhere is extremely annoying. As for better user education on Versions, I'll agree with that one hundred percent. The functionality is provided free of charge to developers using NSDocument (from reading other peoples threads on this HN thread) and thus does require some help from the program, if they read/write using POSIX they won't get free support for it.

FixThisPOSSite 14y ago

"you simply choose File -> Duplicate" Standard smug, bullshit answer whenever glaring design defects are brought up in Apple products. Nice condescension with "you simply." No, you don't "simply" do this, because there is no way for the user to guess the defective turn of events that's about to happen. Not to mention that the "Save As" option might as well not exist. The fact that Apple allows hidden, secret menus that are only revealed by pressing unindicated modifier keys disproves the myth of Apple's "elegance" and "attention to detail." Apple continually chooses the most cumbersome, error-prone, and idiotically roundabout solutions to simple problems. In this case, there WAS no problem. How many layers of shit are they going to heap onto this OS? Time Machine was supposed to solve data-loss problems. Now we have a bloated, system-wide, redundant overseer for files. And sure enough, it causes data loss. Not only in this example here (which most people will never encounter because there is still, essentially, no "Save As" option) but also in regular usage. Xcode developers have had chunks of their source files simply disappear, followed by a prompt claiming that an external application modified the file. There are so many things for Apple to fix (such as the disgraceful Finder), and they're not only wasting time loading the OS up with garbage like this, but wasting users' time by destroying their data.