Re: confused about preserved permissions

[Benoit SIGOURE <tsuna@lrde.epita.fr>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1435 bytes --]


On Aug 23, 2007, at 8:12 AM, David Kastrup wrote:

> martin f krafft <madduck@madduck.net> writes:
>
>> also sprach Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> [2007.08.23.0009  
>> +0200]:
>>> We deliberately chose not to use that space, and this default is
>>> very unlikely to change.
>>
>> The downsides included change in SHA hash on mode change, as far as
>> I can remember. Anything else?
>
> The modes are recorded in patches and push/pull, so if you have
> several people working with different permissions/umasks, you get
> wagonloads of unnecessary patches and get your local permissions
> messed up by other contributors.
>
> For colloborative work, you _really_ don't want to have _personal_
> preferences distributed.
>
> Any patch offering to optionally track permissions must make very sure
> that it retains the possibility to have permissions in the directory
> policed to the values that are actually a property of the source files
> rather than the personal work environment.
>

Hmm yes, that's right.

Let's look at the problem from another point of view then: I want my  
*working tree* to be group readable even though my umask is 066.   
Would it be possible to add a local config option in the .git repo to  
tell git that it should create new file this way (exactly like  
core.sharedRepository but core.sharedWorkingCopy or whatever).

WDYT?

-- 
Benoit Sigoure aka Tsuna
EPITA Research and Development Laboratory



[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 186 bytes --]