Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 11/16/2014 07:49 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > ... >> So I would suggest not to spend any cycle or any code complexity to >> "repair" existing repositories. Having that bit on does not hurt >> anybody. Those who found it curious can flip that bit off and then >> Git with "preserve existing permissions" fix will keep that bit off >> from then on. > > I disagree. The point of "preserve existing permissions" was to allow > people to make their config files more readable/writable than the > default,... s/more/less/, I think, was the original motivation. Having to limit more tightly than usual was what made the "config" unusual among files under $GIT_DIR. If it were to loosen, Eric's change should not have been done in the first place. The sharedRepository setting to defeat the default umask is there for that kind of thing. > That being said, I still believe that executable config files are not a > significant risk ... It is merely an annoyance, to the same degree of annoyance we find when we see all files appear executable on a FAT floppy mounted on Linux ;-) I do not think it is a risk at all, and I do not see a point in going into people's repository and actively "fixing" it. People who notice can fix, and people who do not care do not care and are not harmed. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html