git init permissions?

git init permissions?

[Ferry Huberts (Pelagic)]

Hi list,

Maybe a silly question but I couldn't figure out the answer.

I'm looking at the git init --shared=group result and see:

drwxrwsr-x 7 ferry ferry  111 2009-04-14 19:51 .
drwxrwxr-x 3 ferry ferry   17 2009-04-14 19:51 ..
drwxrwxr-x 2 ferry ferry    6 2009-04-14 19:51 branches
-rw-rw-r-- 1 ferry ferry  127 2009-04-14 19:51 config
-rw-rw-r-- 1 ferry ferry   58 2009-04-14 19:51 description
-rw-rw-r-- 1 ferry ferry   23 2009-04-14 19:51 HEAD
drwxrwxr-x 2 ferry ferry 4.0K 2009-04-14 19:51 hooks
drwxrwxr-x 2 ferry ferry   20 2009-04-14 19:51 info
drwxrwsr-x 4 ferry ferry   28 2009-04-14 19:51 objects
drwxrwsr-x 4 ferry ferry   29 2009-04-14 19:51 refs

Is there some kind of reason that the branches directory is
not created with +s permissions?

I can understand it for the hooks and info directories since
you can not push into those. You _can_ however push into
branches and I would expect it to have +s too, like objects
and refs.

Bug or my misunderstanding?

git version 1.6.0.6

Re: git init permissions?

[Jan Krüger]

Hi,

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:09:50 +0200, "Ferry Huberts (Pelagic)"
<ferry.huberts@pelagic.nl> wrote:

> Is there some kind of reason that the branches directory is
> not created with +s permissions?

Probably because it isn't really used anymore. It's more like a
historical artifact. Branch refs actually live in refs/heads/ and the
like (or in the packed-refs file).

-Jan

Re: git init permissions?

[Johan Herland]

On Tuesday 14 April 2009, Ferry Huberts (Pelagic) wrote:
> I'm looking at the git init --shared=group result and see:
>
> drwxrwsr-x 7 ferry ferry  111 2009-04-14 19:51 .
> drwxrwxr-x 3 ferry ferry   17 2009-04-14 19:51 ..
> drwxrwxr-x 2 ferry ferry    6 2009-04-14 19:51 branches
> -rw-rw-r-- 1 ferry ferry  127 2009-04-14 19:51 config
> -rw-rw-r-- 1 ferry ferry   58 2009-04-14 19:51 description
> -rw-rw-r-- 1 ferry ferry   23 2009-04-14 19:51 HEAD
> drwxrwxr-x 2 ferry ferry 4.0K 2009-04-14 19:51 hooks
> drwxrwxr-x 2 ferry ferry   20 2009-04-14 19:51 info
> drwxrwsr-x 4 ferry ferry   28 2009-04-14 19:51 objects
> drwxrwsr-x 4 ferry ferry   29 2009-04-14 19:51 refs
>
> Is there some kind of reason that the branches directory is
> not created with +s permissions?
>
> I can understand it for the hooks and info directories since
> you can not push into those. You _can_ however push into
> branches and I would expect it to have +s too, like objects
> and refs.
>
> Bug or my misunderstanding?
>
> git version 1.6.0.6

This was caused by the template files not getting adjusted permissions set 
correctly when copied into a new repository (by git init).

This has been fixed (along with other --shared issues) in v1.6.2.3. Please 
upgrade, if possible.


Have fun! :)

...Johan

-- 
Johan Herland, <johan@herland.net>
www.herland.net

Re: git init permissions?

[Ferry Huberts (Pelagic)]

Johan Herland wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 April 2009, Ferry Huberts (Pelagic) wrote:
>> I'm looking at the git init --shared=group result and see:
>>
>> drwxrwsr-x 7 ferry ferry  111 2009-04-14 19:51 .
>> drwxrwxr-x 3 ferry ferry   17 2009-04-14 19:51 ..
>> drwxrwxr-x 2 ferry ferry    6 2009-04-14 19:51 branches
>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 ferry ferry  127 2009-04-14 19:51 config
>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 ferry ferry   58 2009-04-14 19:51 description
>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 ferry ferry   23 2009-04-14 19:51 HEAD
>> drwxrwxr-x 2 ferry ferry 4.0K 2009-04-14 19:51 hooks
>> drwxrwxr-x 2 ferry ferry   20 2009-04-14 19:51 info
>> drwxrwsr-x 4 ferry ferry   28 2009-04-14 19:51 objects
>> drwxrwsr-x 4 ferry ferry   29 2009-04-14 19:51 refs
>>
>> Is there some kind of reason that the branches directory is
>> not created with +s permissions?
>>
>> I can understand it for the hooks and info directories since
>> you can not push into those. You _can_ however push into
>> branches and I would expect it to have +s too, like objects
>> and refs.
>>
>> Bug or my misunderstanding?
>>
>> git version 1.6.0.6
> 
> This was caused by the template files not getting adjusted permissions set 
> correctly when copied into a new repository (by git init).
> 
> This has been fixed (along with other --shared issues) in v1.6.2.3. Please 
> upgrade, if possible.
> 

unfortunately that's not possible since I'm on RHEL.

thanks for the asnwers guys!

Re: git init permissions?

[Todd Zullinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 592 bytes --]

Ferry Huberts (Pelagic) wrote:
> Johan Herland wrote:
>> This has been fixed (along with other --shared issues) in v1.6.2.3.
>> Please upgrade, if possible.
>
> unfortunately that's not possible since I'm on RHEL.

Out of curiosity, why not?  I'm not aware of any official git-1.6.0.6
builds for RHEL, so you must already be using git from a third-party
repository.

-- 
Todd        OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When correctly viewed, everything is lewd.
    -- Tom Lehrer


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 542 bytes --]

Re: git init permissions?

[Ferry Huberts (Pelagic)]

Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Ferry Huberts (Pelagic) wrote:
>> Johan Herland wrote:
>>> This has been fixed (along with other --shared issues) in v1.6.2.3.
>>> Please upgrade, if possible.
>> unfortunately that's not possible since I'm on RHEL.
> 
> Out of curiosity, why not?  I'm not aware of any official git-1.6.0.6
> builds for RHEL, so you must already be using git from a third-party
> repository.
> 

I did the test on my fedora system. the git version on rhel is even
older than 1606