On 2008.04.11 21:48:36 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Heikki Orsila <shdl@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 05:53:36PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > ... > >> For example, you may want to enforce "ug+rw,o=" in a repository. How > >> would you do that? > > > > Isn't that PERM_GROUP? The user always keeps u+rw for oneself. > > My question was about the "o=" part. I did not see you dropping bits for > others in your patch. > > And if your answer is "the user should have xx7 umask", that defeats the > whole point of your patch, as you are trying to dissociate the umask used > by the user for his usual task and enforce particular permission policy > for the repository. I don't think it defeats the purpose of the patch. Currently, I guess that for most users (umask like 0022 or 0077), both shared and all mean that the umask is overriden in a way that grants more permissions on the repository. As it is, we only support that in a way that grants write permissions to the group, while others may get read-only access (via "all"). From that point of view, I think that the patch is a natural enhancement, allowing to override the umask in a way that only grants additional read permissions for either the group, or the group and others. And that's exactly what Heikki was after. Of course, having a "ignore the umask, use those permissions" setting might be nice, but short of that, the patch makes sense to me. Björn -- 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
