Comment 7 for bug 1828279

In my mind, #1 is the necessary action. Also, #4 though I'd like a date filter. From my understanding, this information is contained in audit tables that are configured very differently across Evergreen deployments. In some cases, these are retained for 3 months. In the case of Evergreen Indiana, they are retained for 9 months. I suspect there are places that retain the data in these tables for a year or longer.

As I'm thinking about all of this, I'm also thinking about the performance of equipment and the efficiency of the software. If we're talking about being able to view various versions of a record, that means that all of those versions need to exist somewhere - server space. The more "stuff" we create (directories, tables, files), the more space we need. The load on systems, etc.

If we can utilize what's already being generated and just find a way to render what's in the tables in some human readable format, we get the information we're looking for without adding a great deal of bloat in the databases.

Jeff also made a really great point. "One last thought. When different institutions share the same records, this feature will allow Library A to see the changes that Library B has made to "their" record. This is a good thing and it makes sense for Evergreen to support it. However, it could lead to delicate situations depending on your consortium's politics and policies."

Accessing this information should be reserved for those individuals identified as knowing how to hand such information in an appropriate and professional manner.