On 4/28/2020 7:22 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 03:44:13PM -0600, Taylor Blau wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> I have to admit I don't care that much either way about it (see my >> earlier response on three mental models). I'm happy for you or Junio to >> decide. :) > > My gut feeling is that our longer term goal (if we had timeperiod > during which the codebase is quiescent enough and infinite energy to > dedicate on code clean-up) among one or your options should be to > consistently create files that are rewritten-and-renamed read-only, > to discourage casual tampering, so I am OK with that 5th patch. > > Having said that, I suspect that Derrick and friends are larger > stakeholders in the "chain" file, so I'd prefer to see us basing > the choice on their input. I'm happy with how this discussion has gone. I'm sure the only reason for the permissions I wrote was because I found them somewhere else in the codebase and I copied them from there. Memory is fuzzy, but I can guarantee the deviation from the norm was not in purpose. Thanks, -Stolee
