On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 09:26:43PM +0000, Nicolas Vilz wrote: > On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 01:31:06PM -0400, Thomas Harning Jr. wrote: > > On 9/14/07, martin f krafft <madduck@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > also sprach Francis Moreau <francis.moro@xxxxxxxxx> [2007.09.14.1008 +0200]: > > > > Did you find an alternative to git in this case ? > > > > > > No, and I did not look anywhere, but I know of no other VCS that can > > > adequatly track permissions. > > Has anyone checked out metastore? http://repo.or.cz/w/metastore.git > > ... there's an XML error in there somewhere, so its not loading the > > 'main' page, but http://repo.or.cz/w/metastore.git?a=shortlog should > > work. > > > > It looks like it could work.... any thoughts on this? > > I use that tool. If you just have one branch, it works. With the > commit-hook, which also updates the metadata, you have current > permission tracking. > > There is a lack of a checkout-hook, which sets the permissions, so you > have to remeber todo a metastore -a after you checked out a revision. Note that having metastore run by a hook makes it unsuitable for /etc versioning, because you may have short period of times during which s3kr3t files are readable by more people that what it should be. The sole sane way to do that would be to track permissions, acls, whatever _in_ git. Though, I'm still not convinced that it is such a good idea at all. I mean for source code you absolutely _don't_ want git to track permissions (outside from the +x bit). You don't want git to try to chown your files to "madcoder:madcoder" because I was the last one committing. So that would mean that you want sometimes to track permissions, sometimes not. So you need a bunch of tools to list files whose permissions have to be tracked, and whose permissions don't need to be. I fear that you'll end up with quite a big bloat of git, for a use case that is fairly limited. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpfVTE2Gz1O9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
