https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=157943
--- Comment #11 from tsulayaiv <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #8) > On Windows with several LO versions installed in parallel: > > 1. Open any (local) document using an old LO version (say, 7.0); > 2. In the directory where that document is located, see and delete the > lockfile (so that the lockfile doesn't interfere with the real issue); > 3. Open the same file in a new LO version (say, 7.6). > > => the "Document in use" warning does not allow you to open the file for > editing, only R/O or as a copy. > > The following steps 4-6 should be done in the newer version (in my example, > 7.6). > > 4. Open it R/O; > 5. Try to enter the Edit mode (e.g., using the infobar's "Edit Document" > button, or Edit->Edit Mode (Ctrl+Shift+M)) > > => the same warning will appear, and again, it won't allow you to open in > edit mode. > > 6. Try to Save As -> same name > > => An error will appear: > > > Error saving the document XYZ: > > Write Error. > > Document opened as read-only cannot be saved over itself. > > 7. Close the newer version (7.6), but keep the document open in 7.0; try to > delete the document from Explorer, or try opening it in Notepad, delete the > binary "garbage", and save. > > => Both actions will fail. > > The older version used the OS means to prevent any change of the file on > disk (locking + appropriate sharing flags); so the file opened for writing > in one session, couldn't be modified in any other session. This also applied > to Windows shares, so users in Windows network were safe in this regard. > This followed the Windows OS paradigm of working with files; note that this > paradigm is different from that common in Linux world. > > ====== > > Now repeat the same procedure (steps 1 - 7), but in step 1, use a newer > version - say, 7.5. > > a) After step 3, the warning dialog will not appear at all - the document > will open without any warning in the second editor, in Edit mode; this > means, that steps 4 and 5 don't even make sense. > > b) Step 6 succeeds, meaning that now the file is not protected on disk at > all. > > c) Step 7 doesn't succeed, showing that at least some locking is still in > place. Note that while saving with notepad fails, saving using notepad++ > succeeds. dmn, that's some good weed you have there man)) so mine guess the devs just can't revert back those changes and made it like it was before? ps for now we switch to OO for a couple of users that desperate for that window back (and i can tell they ain't happy about it)) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
