> 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 an

> 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.