I think git track executable permission, right?

If so, files in git is "read only" and "not deployment too", why it track 
"x" permission?

Keep "read only" permission is useful in some scenario. And most important 
thing is there's on harm to keep it (I am not a software developer, correct 
me if I am wrong)?


On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 6:55:55 AM UTC+10, Philip Oakley wrote:
> I have post an question at 
> http://superuser.com/questions/962861/how-to-use-git-to-commit-read-only-file 
> I just want to know why GIT doesn't track read/write permission?
> What I want is just GIT keep what every I checked in? ( I am OK with the 
> executable permission control)
> It's sort of a philosophical issue. If you are placing a file into a 
> repository, it is by definition "read only". You can never 'write' the same 
> revision, but with a different content - it would be a contradiction. Hence 
> the r/w flags are ignored.
> It's important to remember that as concieved, Git is not a deployment 
> tool, so it didn't need r/w permissions, and as open source DVCS, 
> everything checked out would be local so the user would have full control, 
> so read-only couldn't be relied on anyway, and we hope the user will 
> contribute a change/improvement so 'write' it is!
> Likewise it doesn't store timestamps (of the files) either..
> There is a Linus 'rant' somewhere on the issue..
> Philip

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git 
for human beings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to