Re: [PATCH] fetch: allow running as different users in shared repositories

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi Vadim,

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 20:04:09 +0100 Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> JS> Hi Vadim,
>
>  Hello Johannes and thanks for your reply!
>
> JS> On Thu, 19 Mar 2020, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
> JS>
> JS> > The function fopen_for_writing(), which was added in 79d7582e32 (commit:
> JS> > allow editing the commit message even in shared repos, 2016-01-06) and
> JS> > used for overwriting FETCH_HEAD since ea56518dfe (Handle more file
> JS> > writes correctly in shared repos, 2016-01-11), didn't do it correctly in
> JS> > shared repositories under Linux.
> JS> >
> JS> > This happened because in this situation the file FETCH_HEAD has mode 644
> JS>
> JS> I wonder why that is. In a shared repository, it should have mode 664, I
> JS> thought.
>
>  This file is created using a simple fopen("w") and so is subject to umask.
> With the usual default umask value (022) its mode would be 644, regardless
> of the repository settings.

Maybe we should change that to an `open()` call with the explicit `0666`
mode?

> [...snip my original description...]
> JS> That rationale makes sense to me, as does the patch.
>
>  Sorry for a possibly stupid question, but what is the next thing to do
> now? The instructions in Documentation/SubmittingPatches indicate that I
> should wait until the "list forms consensus that [...] your patch is good",
> but it's not quite clear what indicates that a consensus has been reached.
> Is your comment above enough or should I wait for something else? And
> if/when it has been reached, do I really I need to resend the patch to
> the maintainer and cc the list as written in that document? I'm a bit
> surprised by this because I don't see (most) patches being resent to this
> list.

My take is that this was waiting for a review, and I provided it (*not*
asking for any changes), and if there are no further reviews, the patch
should make it into the `pu` branch, then `next` and eventually `master`,
at which point it will be slated for the next official `.0` version.

It might make sense to ask for it to be trickled down into the `maint`
branch, too, in case a `v2.26.1` is released. I would be in favor of that,
but would not do the asking myself ;-)

Ciao,
Johannes

>
>  This is obviously very non-urgent, but I'd just like to understand what,
> if anything, is expected from me.
>
>  Thanks in advance for your guidance!
> VZ
>