On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 05:08:21PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 02:05:21PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > > This is looking like a much deeper rabbit hole than it's worth going > > > down. I think the pragmatic thing is to just stick a "umask 022" near > > > the new test (or possibly "test_might_fail umask 022" inside the > > > commit-graph writing test). > > > > I think the most pragmatic would be to just squash in what is > > already there ;-) > > That is OK with me. :) Thanks for an interesting discussion. I squashed Junio's fix into the third patch, but the fourth patch suffers from the same problem (so I stuck another POSIXPERM test to tweak the umask there, too). What do you want to do about the final patch that I stuck on the end of this series in [1]? If I don't hear from anybody, I'll send it as 5/5 in v3 and we can feel free to not apply it if it's controversial. > -Peff Thanks, Taylor [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200427172111.GA58509@syl.local/
