Locking field.storage should not lock field instance settings (field.field)

Good catch! Locking a field is about assuring its existance for code that depends on it.
It's not about assuring the value of a label.
But currently it MAY BE about assuring that a concrete bundle instance exists.

So i see two questions:
- 1) Should instance settings like the label be editable?
- 2) Should an instance setting be deletable?

So yes, the distinction of the related issue makes sense, so +1 for making this a dup.

Thanks @geek-merlin! Nice to see things moving on here :)

1) Should instance settings like the label be editable?
2) Should an instance setting be deletable?

Both YES, if the instance itself isn't locked (eventually split into "deletable" and "editable" instead of "locked" in the future. What do you think about that split? Eventually reply in ✨ Replace field.locked by field.editable, field.deleteable, fieldinstance.editable, fieldinstance.deleteable Active

You:
> What do you think about that split?

Me:
> So yes, the distinction of the related issue makes sense, so +1 for making this a dup.

This meant: The 2 questions are independent. Let's close this and work on in the other issue.

Thanks @geek-merlin for the clarification! I'm fine with that, but when closing this, please ensure the key points are present in the other issues or transferred over there.

Also, we should ensure that 🐛 Do not allow to alter Locked field via UI Needs work sticks to the plan instead of clashing with it.