Re: 'git clone,' build makes user non-writable files (should be option keep user-writable)

[David Chmelik <davidnchmelik@gmail.com>]

On 7/22/22 8:54 PM, Chris Torek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 5:29 PM David Chmelik<davidnchmelik@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On 7/22/22 10:40 AM, Chris Torek wrote:
>>> All true.  But Git has no control over, or affect on these: Git does
>>> not attempt to affect ownership or permission of any build products
>>> at all.  Git only attempts to affect the execute permission of
>>> specific files as directed by the committed file mode (and provided
>>> `core.filemode` is enabled).
>> Not even projects' .git* subdirectories?  They typically are/become
>> user-non-writable though deletable with several/many confirmations so I
>> usually sudo (recommended against).
> Ah, I thought you were (and I definitely was) talking only about the
> *build products*. The stuff inside `.git` itself: some of that, Git does set
> to non-writable.
Initially wasn't; don't know why took three replies to clear up 
(initially clearly specified non-root usage which others ignored and 
mentioned/focused unrelated root topic).

> There is no need to use `sudo` though: a simple
> "rm -rf .git" will blow away the Git repository itself.  However:
Still fewer confirmations with sudo (one rather than every single 
user-non-writable file).

>> I'd rather opt-out of .git* subdirectories for every clone.
> In that case, *don't run `git clone in the first place*. The purpose of
> `git clone` is to get you the entire repository. If you want a single working
> tree, use `git archive` to make an archive from the commit you want,
> and extract that archive to get the tree you want, without getting all
> the *other* revisions.
Seems much more complicated (and less-documented) and most popular git 
sites (though the #1 isn't Free/Libre/Opensource Software (FLS, OSS, 
FOSS, FLOSS) so is condemned) allow clone but not archive.  I know you 
can't control their mistakes and they should be irrelevant 
(unfortunately most projects use most popular/broken sites) but couldn't 
there be more (detailed and/or easier) syntax?