These changes would suggest that the table belongs to com_content, but this is not the case as every component can use the versioning feature.

Just a thought: Seeing as we call the function "Versions" should this not be called #__versions_history. I'm sure there's a good reason why not, but just a thought.

@HLeithner #__content_types is also used everywhere but it is.

@1252spike Nope, it's used in com_contenthistory, the model name is ContentHistory, the word version is frustrating.

tbh our complete database structure would need a face lift or more @alikon and @richard67 are pretty much in favor for this but renaming something which is not really wrong and make it wrong isn't a good option ymmv

@HLeithner I'm not in favour of this.

@richard67 thought you would like to restructure the database a bit, sorry if I misunderstood this

@Denitz do you know a rule "do not touch if it works"? :)

There no much sense in the changes, even if new name sounds better.

Alpha5 is really not the time to even think about changing core table names

Alpha5 is really not the time to even think about changing core table names

If it was Alpha5 and not Beta5 I would maybe be ok with it ;-)

I have tested this item ? unsuccessfully on d7daae7

Applied patch, Result: "#_history" gone, "#__content_history" exists
Point of concern: Database update structure issued with result error: "missing #_history table"

Tested article history was successful. Changed version version info could be seen in table "#_content_history"

Applied patch, Result: "#_history" gone, "#__content_history" exists
Point of concern: Database update structure issued with result error: "missing #_history table"

Tested article history was successful. Changed version version info could be seen in table "#_content_history"