Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > Well, I think that the setuid helper script would open a whole bunch of > other issues. > > I think that the shared repository problem is rather a semantic one, i.e. > it is only solvable between the owners of the repository by good-ole > talking, not something that can be solved by the tool (Git). I very strongly agree with you that the suid helper would be the last ditch thing we would want to avoid doing unless there is no other way. I also agree with you that the owners of the repository need to be talking. But I think the tool _could_ help them do their talking. It is conceivable that just like you can explicitly allow selected others to push into your own repository, you would want to explicitly allow some others to ask you to keep objects their repositories borrow from you. Originally, I wrote "allow others to borrow from you", but that is very ill defined. If they can read from your repository they can unilaterally borrow from you without having any write permission to your repository that is needed to install backpointers. I am not fundamentally opposed to a backpointer that point at borrowers so that the lender can protect the objects that are pointed by them. However, there are two technical issues in the solution of pointing at the borrower's .git/refs with a symlink from the repository that is borrowed from, as I pointed out when this came up last time. - There are systems without symbolic links. - A symref (e.g. refs/remotes/origin/HEAD of borrower that points at refs/remotes/origin/master of borrower) is relative to borrower's repository. -- 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
