Persistent relations

[akirot]

The request is to make automatically detected versions persistent  - like manual versions.
Phrased differently: Give "manual versions" the same detection mechanism as the other relations.

This circumvents the problem of the current IMatch implementation dropping existing relations (except manual ones) when "Refreshing Relations".

Such an option could be added to the existing relation configuration window.

Once implemented "persistent versions" should be treated the same way as "manual versions".

Together with the possibility to use "any" metadata for version detection (please see the respective feature request) the versioning facilities would be extended dramatically.

[Mario]

Manual relations allow you to manually master and version files by whatever criteria you need. Or to do it from an app.
Dynamic relations use rules to determine which files are versions and masters.
I see no reason to make manual versions the same as dynamic relations. There are good reasons for having both.

This circumvents the problem of the current IMatch implementation dropping existing relations (except manual ones) when "Refreshing Relations".

There is no problem. The problem is that you apparently deliberately break relations by moving files around or renaming then. And when you later refresh the relations, IMatch correctly (!) drops the relations because it cannot longer apply the dynamic rules because the versions are not in the expected folders or have the expected names. This is precisely the intended behavior.

If you perform operations on your files which break file relation rules, either use manual relations which are not sensitive to such effects or maybe use some other approach that better fits your workflow.

Making manual relations work like dynamic relations or somehow "locking" relation rules which are detected as no longer existing during a relation refresh would increase the complexity for both the programming and the user.

And probably you are the only user who would ever need such a thing.
I may be wrong with that.
Let's see if other users comment on your requests and how many +1 / Likes these requests get.
If there is sufficient demand I will of course consider your request for a future IMatch version.

[sinus]

To be honest, I was suprised to read the related threads.
I came never on the idea to create versions with a rule, and then move around these versions, so that the rules is not more true.

Although I have thought about it, I could hardly think about a workflow, where this would make sense.
For me personally I would create the workflow after the rules, and not create the rules for the workflow (except I would be the programmer  )

But anyway, if you get enough likes, maybe one day Mario would think about changing this.