From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] update-server-info: create info/* with mode 0666 Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 16:47:10 -0500 Message-ID: <20150106214710.GA457@peff.net> References: <20150106034702.GA11503@peff.net> <20150106035048.GB20087@peff.net> <20150106193950.GB28440@peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Paul Sokolovsky , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jan 06 22:47:52 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Y8byA-0007eN-HH for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 22:47:18 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756165AbbAFVrN (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2015 16:47:13 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:59708 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754201AbbAFVrN (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2015 16:47:13 -0500 Received: (qmail 20466 invoked by uid 102); 6 Jan 2015 21:47:12 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 15:47:12 -0600 Received: (qmail 13931 invoked by uid 107); 6 Jan 2015 21:47:30 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 16:47:30 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 06 Jan 2015 16:47:10 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 01:43:33PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > That is definitely not what the series means to accomplish. I think > > naming the test "info/refs respects umask in unshared repo" is probably > > a better title for the test. > > Thanks for sanity-checking me (I am still somewhat feverish and not > performing at 100% level). Here is what I have locally (but haven't > got around to today's integration cycle yet) on top. Yeah, that looks fine. Do you think we need an update to the explanation in the commit message, or does it make sense in light of the discussion we've had? -Peff