Comment 20 for bug 90378

Yes, I see your point.

Nevertheless, I think there is a difference between a feature being an annoyance for some use cases and a feature causing dataloss. If I understood you correctly, then we both agree that not making the files read-only (or taking one of the other measures described in the initial bug description) will result in dataloss when a (non-technical) user follows his intuitive expectations. I think that is an entirely different category than loosing a couple of seconds when the file is read-only and needs to be saved under a new name. For that reason I very much plead for the default behaviour to be read-only.

Making this configurable is something I'm not opposed to either, but I fear that the developers may be reluctant to add too many optional features.

It seems to me that we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.