There's one more mode bit we might actually care about: the symlink bit.
(One would store the target as the blob, presumably, but chmod isn't going
to create symlinks out of regular files.)
Morten
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL P
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, David A. Wheeler wrote:
There's a minor reason to write out ALL the perm bit data, but
only care about a few bits coming back in: Some people use
SCM systems as a generalized backup system
Yes. I was actually thinking about having system config files in a
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, David A. Wheeler wrote:
>
> There's a minor reason to write out ALL the perm bit data, but
> only care about a few bits coming back in: Some people use
> SCM systems as a generalized backup system
Yes. I was actually thinking about having system config files in a git
repos
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, David A. Wheeler wrote:
> There's a minor reason to write out ALL the perm bit data, but
> only care about a few bits coming back in: Some people use
> SCM systems as a generalized backup system, so you can back up
> your system to an arbitrary known state in the past
> (e.g.,
David wrote:
> There's a minor reason to write out ALL the perm bit data, but
There's always the 'configurable option' approach.
Someone, I doubt Linus will have any interest in it, could volunteer to
make the masks of st_mode, used when storing and recovering file
permissions, be configurable by
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Paul Jackson wrote:
Morten wrote:
It makes some sense in principle, but without storing what they mean
(i.e., group==?) it certainly makes no sense.
There's no "they" there.
I think Martin's proposal, to which I agreed, was to store a _single_
bit. If an
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Anybody want to send a patch to do this?
Actually, I just did it. Seems to work for the only test-case I tried,
namely I just committed it, and checked that the permissions all ended up
being recorded as 0644 in the tree (if it has the -x bit set,
Linus wrote:
> It might be ok to just change the "compare cache" check to only care
> about a few bits, though: S_IXUSR and S_IFDIR. And then ...
I think I agree. But since I am reluctant to take enough time to
understand the code well enough to write this patch, I'll shut up now ;).
--
Paul Jackson wrote:
Junio wrote:
Sounds like svn
I have no idea what svn is.
svn = common abbreviation for "Subversion", a
widely-used centralized SCM tool intentionally
similar to CVS.
--- David A. Wheeler
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Paul Jackson wrote:
>
> Morten wrote:
> > It makes some sense in principle, but without storing what they mean
> > (i.e., group==?) it certainly makes no sense.
>
> There's no "they" there.
>
> I think Martin's proposal, to which I agreed, was to store a _single_
> bit. I
Morten wrote:
> It makes some sense in principle, but without storing what they mean
> (i.e., group==?) it certainly makes no sense.
There's no "they" there.
I think Martin's proposal, to which I agreed, was to store a _single_
bit. If any of the execute permissions of the incoming file are set
> Does it really make sense to store full permissions in the trees? I think
> that remembering the x-bit should be good enough for almost all purposes
> and the other permissions should be left to the local environment.
It makes some sense in principle, but without storing what they mean
(i.e., gr
Junio wrote:
> Sounds like svn
I have no idea what svn is.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1.650.933.1373,
1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "
> "PJ" == Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
PJ> That matches my experience - store 1 bit of mode state - executable or not.
Sounds like svn ;-).
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http:
Martin wrote:
> Does it really make sense to store full permissions in the trees? I think
> that remembering the x-bit should be good enough for almost all purposes
> and the other permissions should be left to the local environment.
That matches my experience - store 1 bit of mode state - executa
15 matches
Mail list logo
