That's an answer to the wrong question. I want to keep the changes I'm working on, under a new name, and keep the original untouched. Or maybe I made 5 edits to the original but the 6th edit I want in a new file (happens all the time). It just seems unnecessarily complicated. Having documents automatically save is great but it should require taking away so many other features.
You think the question is wrong because you aren't in the new model. Again- everything is continuously saved. There are no "in-flight" changes.
What you want to do is keep your the changes you made today and save a copy of an old version from earlier today. The way you do that is to revert the file to the beginning of the day, duplicate this "original" version, then revert back to the version with all your changes from today.
It's more steps, but hey, you retroactively decided a past version was important enough to save a copy of.
The problem with both the new model and the old model is they combine two concepts: storing your work so it isn't lost by act of God or stupidity and permanently committing those changes to a specific named file and version.
I want my work continually saved so that I never lose anything but that doesn't necessary mean I want it committed every minute. What I really want to do is commit my current work to a new name leaving the original document unchanged. Duplicating then reverting achieves the same result but feels much more like I'm doing something to please the machine instead of the machine fitting to what is a common work style.
Well put. Again, we're being forced to do the work for the machine. Having multiple automatic commits happening in another area that is something we can pull back in between actual manual 'commits' ('saves') would have been a much better alternative.
Once I 'save' to a different file name, from what I understand, automatic saves are still happening to the original file and filename - why? That makes no sense however you slice it.
