On 11/17/2014 04:33 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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. Oops, you are right. I actually meant to type "less or more", but I see that "more" would be pretty useless. >> 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. OK, then, I'll send a new copy of patch 1/2 and drop 2/2. Michael -- Michael Haggerty mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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