On June 18, 2020 2:32 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Riddell, Matthew A" <mriddell@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > I noticed while working with Git that the file permissions on the > > gitconfig file is ignored and the parent folder permissions are used > > instead to update the file. An example is as follows: > > > > Before running git config ensure the user running the command is not > > able to edit the file but has read access to the file. Ensure the User > > has full access to the parent folder. After running any git config > > command the user previously without edit permissions on a file can now > > edit the config file. Forgive me to asking, but is this an attempt at replicating what other VCS systems do? ClearCase is an example where files are forced to read-only and if the user wants to modify it, then they have to ask nicely for a lock on the file. The use of "read only" is a semi-guarantee that a user will not modify code and interfere with other users. In git, the rules are quite different, where modification resolution occurs later in the process. > That is pretty much how things are intended to work on a filesystem and is > not limited to Git. Your arrangement, contrary to what you said, does not > "ensure the user running the command is not able to edit but has read > access". > > mkdir newdir > chmod +rwx newdir > >newdir/file > chmod a-w newdir/file > > would not forbid you from doing > > rm -f newdir/file > ehco new >newdir/file > > In other words, if you allow your user to write to a directory, you cannot > forbid the user from creating and removing files in it. Just inquiring about this, as git operational decisions are fundamentally different from older systems. Regards, Randall -- Brief whoami: NonStop developer since approximately 211288444200000000 UNIX developer since approximately 421664400 -- In my real life, I talk too much.
