On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 08:40:13PM +0200, David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Mike Hommey <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > 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.
>
> No, they aren't. Filesystems don't create and delete directories on
> the fly. If we record any information about a directory, deleting it
> automagically would not be appropriate since we would lose information
> that has not been explicitly deleted.
git doesn't magically create directories either. It actually stores
something about them: the hash of the tree object that represents them.
And it has permissions associated with these hashes.
What it doesn't have, though, is tracking of the directory's history.
(...)
> > 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)
>
> Now I am sure I don't get your point.
See what a raw tree object looks like:
git-cat-file tree 708453d64796eb617cb8a1602959e00356693315
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
