From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Josh England" Subject: Re: tracking perms/ownership Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:27:05 -0600 Message-ID: <1187972825.6357.125.camel@beauty> References: <1187716461.5986.71.camel@beauty> <20070821134030.b763e9d3.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> <1187817948.5986.159.camel@beauty> <1187905879.5986.199.camel@beauty> <7vtzqpsy3q.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <1187971879.6357.117.camel@beauty> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Linus Torvalds" , git@vger.kernel.org To: "Junio C Hamano" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Aug 24 18:26:29 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IObzP-0005G5-7y for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:26:27 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753402AbXHXQ0X (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:26:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754109AbXHXQ0X (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:26:23 -0400 Received: from mm03snlnto.sandia.gov ([132.175.109.20]:3940 "EHLO sentry.sandia.gov" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752955AbXHXQ0W (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:26:22 -0400 Received: from [132.175.109.1] by sentry.sandia.gov with ESMTP (SMTP Relay 01 (Email Firewall v6.3.1)); Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:26:07 -0600 X-Server-Uuid: AA8306FD-23D1-4E5B-B133-B2D9F10C3631 Received: from [134.253.112.134] (sacv8030ee.sandia.gov [134.253.112.134]) by mailgate.sandia.gov (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l7OGQ5bm020643; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:26:06 -0600 In-Reply-To: <1187971879.6357.117.camel@beauty> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 X-PMX-Version: 5.3.3.310218, Antispam-Engine: 2.5.2.311128, Antispam-Data: 2007.8.24.90328 X-PerlMx-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIII, Probability=7%, Report='BODY_SIZE_800_899 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_X_MAILER 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0' X-TMWD-Spam-Summary: TS=20070824162607; SEV=2.2.2; DFV=B2007082413; IFV=2.0.4,4.0-9; AIF=B2007082413; RPD=5.02.0125; ENG=IBF; RPDID=7374723D303030312E30413031303230362E34364346303639462E303035313A53434A535441543838363133332C73733D312C6667733D30; CAT=NONE; CON=NONE X-MMS-Spam-Filter-ID: B2007082413_5.02.0125_4.0-9 X-WSS-ID: 6AD1D9153HO246657-01-01 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 10:11 -0600, Josh England wrote: > On Thu, 2007-08-23 at 15:08 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Of course, you would need to worry about resolving merge > > conflicts of gitattributes file, too. > > I'm still confused on things. So, with all perms/ownership stored > as .gitattributes, would mucking around with the index still be > necessary? I'm not too sure what to do about merge conflicts. OK, let me know if this is completely off-base. perms/ownership can be stored in the index at update-index time and restored maybe at checkout-index time. Calls to write-tree and read-tree can store/retrieve the perms/ownership data from a .gitattributes file somewhere; and something sane needs to be done about merging. Does this sound reasonable enough for a first cut? -JE