On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 07:58:43PM +0200, David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I also never understood why there were no permissions set on
> > directories in trees...
>
> Because directories are not actually tracked. They are created and
> deleted as-needed.
I don't see why it would prevent to have a permission set to it... the
permission technically can be recorded in the parent tree, along its
sha1. Filesystems are also like this.
> In my proposal for allowing directories to get tracked, permissions of
> 000 would indicate a tree without a corresponding tracked directory.
> Other permissions would correspond to a tracked directory. I am still
> stuck over the representation in the index.
>
> One idea is to unconditionally have an entry "dirname" without
> permissions, and optionally "dirname/" with permissions iff the
> directory is supposed to be tracked, both to be sorted in
> alphabetically. The idea of the first entry is being able to detect
> merge conflicts without extra passes.
>
> But I have not worked on the stuff for a while.
I don't see why you would need an additional entry for the directory
permission.
> > nor why, while the sha1 for child objects are "packed", the modes
> > aren't...
>
> Because a change of the mode of a file will then not cause different
> sha1 sums at the file level.
I think i wasn't clear enough... I just wondered why the format for tree
entries is something like (if you'd write it in perl):
sprintf "%06o %s\0%s", $mode, $file, pack("H[40]", $sha1)
Mike
-
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
