FCs with different kinds of versioning in a feature dataset

Question

ArcGIS Pro 2.6.8; Oracle 18c 10.7.1 EGDB.
By "METB" I mean "Move edits to base".

I have a feature dataset that has FCs with different kinds of versioning:

* BC_FC_Versioned_METB
Versioned (with the option to move edits to base)

* BC_FC_Versioned_Not_METB
Versioned (I didn't use the option to move edits to base)

Question:
Is it ok to leave those FCs/FD as-is, with the mixed versioning types?
Or is there a reason to register the entire FD as versioned, making all FCs be registered the same way? I would need to un-register the FD as versioned (even though the FD isn't technically versioned at the FD level), then re-register the FD as versioned.

Note:
You might be wondering how it's possible I have those versioned FCs in an unversioned FD, since it's not possible to register an individual FC as versioned when it's in a FD.
I did it by dragging and dropping versioned FCs into the FD. Move feature classes [in or] out of a feature dataset

Related: Pasting FC into versioned FD — Automatically register FC to avoid unregistering FD

MMBR · Answer

You might run into issues with reconcile, post and sde compress and to reach state zero sde compress to move all edits to base. Therefore, the recommendation that I make to all my customers is to use the same versioning type for the entire schema in the same geodatabase, if there is a need for a different versioning type then create a separate geodatabase just for that data. This will avoid some well-known issues, also traditional versioning and traditional versioning with move edits to base work quite different behind the scenes, hence, if possible, avoid using both in the same geodatabase. The same applies for ArcGIS Pro Branch Versioning and Traditional Versioning, choose only one type for your entire schema in the same geodatabase.

Bud · Answer

...do not mix different types of versioning on the same geodatabase.

I understand that consistent versioning is simplest to manage. I've actually made the same claim myself in the past.

But in practice, my experience has been that one owner/schema/user (Oracle terminology) might want things versioned one way, and a different owner in the same geodatabase might want to do versioning a different way. If editors stick to editing data in a single owner only, then that seems to work ok. I haven't seen any issues so far with one owner's data being versioned differently than another. (And I actually haven't seen any issues with tables being versioned differently within a given owner either.)

Are there any specific examples/scenarios where different versioning within a FD causes serious problems?

MMBR · Answer

The recommendation is to always use the same type of versioning for you entire featuredataset and also to use the same for the entire geodatabase, do not mix different types of versioning on the same geodatabase.