On 2022-10-28 at 21:16:09, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Julien Moutinho reports that in an environment where directory does > not have BSD group semantics and requires g+s (aka FORCE_DIR_SET_GID) > but the system cripples chmod() to forbid g+s, adjust_shared_perm() I would personally use a different verb here because I have the impression it's offensive, at least when used as a noun. Perhaps "limit" or "restrict" might be more neutral, or we could pick another verb which expresses our displeasure at this design (maybe "impair"?) but maybe is less likely to be emotionally charged or offend. > fails even when the repository is for private use with perm = 0600. > > When we grant extra access based on group membership (i.e. the > directory has either g+r or g+w bit set), which group the directory > and its contents are owned by matters. But otherwise (e.g. perm is > set to 0600, in Julien's case), flipping g+s bit is not necessary. Except for my comment above, I think the patch here addresses the proposed issue and looks good, and as usual, is well explained. -- brian m. carlson (he/him or they/them) Toronto, Ontario, CA
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
