On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 09:50:32AM -0600, Josh England wrote: > > direction and not at least consider people storing actual ACLs (or even > > other extended attributes). An already-standard format like that > > Do you mean using acls through contrib/hooks/update-paranoid? That is > the only place I see any mention of them. clean and smudge seem out > because they are passed blob objects and have no notion of pathname. I > don't see how to use this for automatic storing/restoring of > perms/ownership. No, I mean filesystem ACLs. Your complaint is that git stores only the file _content_, not some specific metadata that you want (owner, group, permissions). My point is that there is _other_ metadata, too (such as POSIX ACLs) that could be stored. Even if you don't want to store them, if you are extending git's capabilities, it makes sense to at least consider how to handle those cases, too. But yes, clean and smudge don't get the pathname. It would be a fairly trivial patch, though, so maybe I'll play with it. -Peff - 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
