From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Heikki Orsila Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add two core.sharedRepository options: group-readable and world-readable Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:01:59 +0300 Message-ID: <20080412120159.GC31039@zakalwe.fi> References: <20080411140916.GA30667@zakalwe.fi> <7vfxtrnban.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20080412030021.GB31039@zakalwe.fi> <7vzlrzlluj.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Apr 12 14:03:01 2008 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JkeRg-0001m4-0o for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:03:00 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757674AbYDLMCE (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Apr 2008 08:02:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757629AbYDLMCC (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Apr 2008 08:02:02 -0400 Received: from zakalwe.fi ([80.83.5.154]:40911 "EHLO zakalwe.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757531AbYDLMCB (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Apr 2008 08:02:01 -0400 Received: by zakalwe.fi (Postfix, from userid 1023) id 031C62C331; Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:01:59 +0300 (EEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vzlrzlluj.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 09:48:36PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Heikki Orsila writes: > > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 05:53:36PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > ... > >> For example, you may want to enforce "ug+rw,o=" in a repository. How > >> would you do that? > > > > Isn't that PERM_GROUP? The user always keeps u+rw for oneself. > > My question was about the "o=" part. I did not see you dropping bits for > others in your patch. > > And if your answer is "the user should have xx7 umask", that defeats the > whole point of your patch, as you are trying to dissociate the umask used > by the user for his usual task and enforce particular permission policy > for the repository. You're correct. There are two options, do you have a preference on this matter? 1. current method + mask off others when needed 2. core.sharedRepository=0xxx I think I like option 2 better (preserving backwards compatibility of course). -- Heikki Orsila Barbie's law: heikki.orsila@iki.fi "Math is hard, let's go shopping!" http://www.iki.fi/shd