Thanks for commenting. I disagree, at least for CSS assets. The CSS files are more likely to be the most commonly edited file on the backend by the typical non-dev user. It's arbitrary and strange that CSS files wouldn't have the same backup ability afforded to them as the others liquid files. It should at least be an option to have it store the prior state, with a full purge only coming perhaps if the user closes out of that session entirely.
I think this is a design flaw and doesn't take into consideration the average user experience.
It's also something that a user discovers (again, as an average non-developer) only after they would need the feature.... Since the other types of content in the code editor have this quality, one could assume assets have the same feature as the other files when making edits (then they have a rude awakening when they go to pull a recent backup of an asset).
Theme backups conceptually are a great feature, I use the heck out of em..... When used as an alternative to a feature like one-off asset file backups, it makes no sense, especially if the goal is to save space because the asset files are... "big." LOL. Theme backups entirely as a whole would take up an insanely bigger amount of space than what backed up asset files only would themselves..... But aight.... I truly wonder how much space is taken up from hundreds of thousands of theme backups, merely from users trying to preserve their data in the assets folder.
It is what it is. I utilize theme backups just fine and quite often for this exact purpose. So I was just asking, since it seems that this is an overlooked UX feature for paying customers. Thanks for your time.
