From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: tracking perms/ownership [was: empty directories] Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:52:17 -0400 Message-ID: <20070824095217.GB16853@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <1187716461.5986.71.camel@beauty> <20070821134030.b763e9d3.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> <1187817948.5986.159.camel@beauty> <1187905879.5986.199.camel@beauty> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Josh England , Linus Torvalds , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Aug 24 11:52:28 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 1IOVq6-00075i-Lu for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:52:27 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763385AbXHXJwW (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:52:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1763362AbXHXJwV (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:52:21 -0400 Received: from 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net ([66.23.211.5]:3990 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1763232AbXHXJwV (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:52:21 -0400 Received: (qmail 10560 invoked by uid 111); 24 Aug 2007 09:52:18 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.4 required=15.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: peff.net Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with SMTP; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:52:18 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:52:17 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 11:38:13AM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > So here's the initial thought. Create two new gitattributes, 'perms' > > and 'ownership', which will track perms/ownership for files matching the > > given pattern. > > I wonder why you do not just use the "smudge" and "clean" attributes, and > store the ownership _and_ the permissions in .gitacls. > > Yes, _maybe_ it is something other people might want, too, but let's start > quick & easy, no? Yes, I think that is a much better idea. Perhaps they aren't that popular among this crowd, but it seems silly to develop in this direction and not at least consider people storing actual ACLs (or even other extended attributes). An already-standard format like that produced by 'getfacl' should make this pretty trivial (and handles regular unix permissions at the same time). -Peff