I don't think Webflow urgently needs a "full version control" system. This would add complexity at odds with the essential experience of the product.
But what _would_ be nice is if Webflow's existing versioning features were slightly enhanced in a way that allowed you to get the main benefits of a traditional VC.
The main benefits of a traditional VC is it lets you:
1. rollback to an earlier version exactly specified by a name
2. use a single name (i.e., a "commit hash") to refer to a version of the project as a whole
3. see a log of comments related to changes.
Webflow lets you create explicitly-named saves of the website. This is great! That gets you benefit 1 and 2. BUT, the version list is cluttered with all the auto-saves, so you can't actually easily scan the list of all the explicit, intentional saves. This undermines the benefit. If you could filter your view of past versions to see only named versions, that would resolve this problem.
It still doesn't help with 3. But you can always maintain your own text file that maps named saves to comments. This is what we do. But yes, it would be nice if one could optionally add a short text comment associated with a named save.
I also think there's a _huge_ difference between versions that were ever published, and versions that were not. The version list should show annotations next to each version, indicating (1) if it is currently published to a domain and (2) if it was every published to a domain.
Vincent Bidaux
.svg){kind=logo}
Just to throw in my perspective on this one.
I don't think Webflow urgently needs a "full version control" system. This would add complexity at odds with the essential experience of the product.
But what _would_ be nice is if Webflow's existing versioning features were slightly enhanced in a way that allowed you to get the main benefits of a traditional VC.
The main benefits of a traditional VC is it lets you:
1. rollback to an earlier version exactly specified by a name
2. use a single name (i.e., a "commit hash") to refer to a version of the project as a whole
3. see a log of comments related to changes.
Webflow lets you create explicitly-named saves of the website. This is great! That gets you benefit 1 and 2. BUT, the version list is cluttered with all the auto-saves, so you can't actually easily scan the list of all the explicit, intentional saves. This undermines the benefit. If you could filter your view of past versions to see only named versions, that would resolve this problem.
It still doesn't help with 3. But you can always maintain your own text file that maps named saves to comments. This is what we do. But yes, it would be nice if one could optionally add a short text comment associated with a named save.
I also think there's a _huge_ difference between versions that were ever published, and versions that were not. The version list should show annotations next to each version, indicating (1) if it is currently published to a domain and (2) if it was every published to a domain.