Yes, they are called deployment tools, which Git is not. One of the is
git-deploy[1], but there are more out there.
Also, I sense a design problem in your application if this is the case,
although it's hard to tell from this much information.
Best,
Gergely
[1]
People make mistakes and if author change the permission and forget to
change it back, that can't be corrected by software (GIT). Git never knows
which file SHOULD be executable unless the author said so. The same as read
only.
My argument is: (keep read-only)
1. No harm
2. Do benefit
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
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)
--
You received
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
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Enzo Chi enzo.chi...@gmail.com wrote:
I think git track executable permission, right?
If so, files in git is read only and not deployment too, why it track
x permission?
x permissions alter the functionality of the file.
For example, if you have a build
