Setup Revisions - Sequencer

Hi,

I was really happy seeing revisions being implemented, it really helps with developing new features into a setup file.

But, I don't really understand the intended order of operations. From what I can see, the working copy is actually the main file/edition of the setup file:

If I open a revision, make changes, and then click save, it saves the changes made to that revision as the published version (which is not being traced). This means that whatever changes is currently made (the so-called working copy in the release note) is in the "published" version, right? The revisions then only become a backup of old configurations, not revision on the way to be a new "published" version or similar? Does that really make sense to anyone; developers or other users out there?

On top of that, it then confuses me that there seem to be no way to load a revision of a setup file in the sequencer? This, again, would make some sense if the actual setup file is to be considered the published version, but not when it is the working copy. However, I'd still request being able to load revisions in the sequencer.

Additionally, a feature that would be nice would be able to work with branches of revisions/editions and also to visualize how files have developed. This is probably a lot to ask for though.

Thanks,

Benjamin

Dear Benjamin,

thank you for reaching out to us. I am glad to hear that you are successfully using our Revision feature, but understand that there are a few points of improvement you would like to raise.

To first answer your question, the Revision functionality was initially made as a collection of closely related Setup files. Our developers wanted to give the user a chance to store their older iterations of a Master Setup file, in case they wanted "backtrack" to an older version for whatever reason. The core functionality therefore dictates that the Master/Main setup file is the newest, most advanced/complete version of the setup, and it is expected that any changes will be applied to the Master setup.

I did double check this, though, and can say that I am currently able to keep my Mater setup file as-is, simply by storing the modifications as a new iteration, and then declining to save the made changes to the Master setup file. Please see the attached GIF as a reference:

You are correct that it is currently not possible to load a revision of the Setup file using a Sequencer. I will go ahead and open a feature request for that.

I was less sure about your request to work with branches of revisions and visualization of how files have developed. The developers noted that this would be too big of an undertaking, so opening a feature request for it is not feasible. They did suggest you make a GIT repository for this kind of tracking - this would then allow you to live track any changes you make in DewesoftX.

Best regards,

Dewesoft Engineering support

Thanks for the thorough explanation!

1) I do understand your "workaround" but I wouldn't say it is a nice one :) It is good that we can keep the original behavior of the base-file (as long as we remember to not click save which the instinct might tell us to). But we still lack the "open" working copy which would not be the file that will be launched automatically unless you save it as a revision. I get that this could be a revision if we do the workaround you show here, but then, every time you save a setup file (which I do frequently to avoid any lack of saved changes when it suddenly crashes), I have to save that as a new revision. This will soon become a hassle to remove an old revision and save a new one when doing small iterations/changes. If we could "save as revision" and it would pick a specific revision/overwrite the revision with the same selected name that would help. Currently a new revision with the same name will just add to the list of revisions.

2) Thanks for putting that on the request list!

3) Regarding the branches, I completely understand the developers decision, no worries.

BR

Benjamin

Dear Benjamin,

thank you for your feedback.

I have added your point 1) to the list of requested features, and will let you know if the developers implement it down the road.

Best regards,

Dewesoft Engineering support