From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Error: unable to unlink ... when using "git gc" Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 00:59:47 -0500 Message-ID: <20090107055947.GA22616@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <488807870901052300y57f59b90rdc03cc47c790b416@mail.gmail.com> <20090106072253.GA9920@coredump.intra.peff.net> <488807870901052352w585da727r6d4a1e4ca4238cab@mail.gmail.com> <20090106080300.GA10079@coredump.intra.peff.net> <488807870901060705m49419ec1he14aace5caaa3d89@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Sitaram Chamarty X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jan 07 07:01:22 2009 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 1LKRTd-0004tu-J4 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 07 Jan 2009 07:01:14 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751081AbZAGF7u (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jan 2009 00:59:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750796AbZAGF7u (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jan 2009 00:59:50 -0500 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:37861 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750703AbZAGF7t (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jan 2009 00:59:49 -0500 Received: (qmail 9236 invoked by uid 107); 7 Jan 2009 06:00:19 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:00:19 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:59:47 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 03:33:57PM +0000, Sitaram Chamarty wrote: > > We also plan to do it in this way, just a small wondering that it > > looks a kind of workaround instead of a more graceful solution. > > I wouldn't consider it a workaround. It uses normal Unix > permissions the way they were designed to, including setgid > for directories. Yes, I think core.sharedrepository is the "official" way to do this, so it is definitely not a workaround. > Actually, I am yet to come up with a situation where I > actually needed ACLs, though they are more generalised, and > fine-grained. I like ACLs mainly because you don't have to bug root to change permissions (like you do to get them to create or modify a group). -Peff