Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Andreas Ericsson wrote: > > >>Johannes Schindelin wrote: >> >>>Hi, >>> >>>On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>If you don't use git-shell, because the same machine is used for other >>>>>purposes, it makes sense to introduce >>>>> >>>>> [core] >>>>> umask = 0002 >>>> >>>>I agree the setting should not be limited to git-shell, but I do >>>>not think setting "umask" from git configuration is the right >>>>way either. For files and directories under $GIT_DIR, maybe >>>>imposing the policy git configuration file has is OK, but I >>>>think honoring the user's umask is the right thing for working >>>>tree files. >>> >>> >>>As we worked out in another thread, you should not have a working directory >>>when you write-share the repository. >>> >> >>Which thread was that? I see no particular problem with having a working >>directory in a write-shared repo. The same care has to be taken there as >>everywhere (pull before push), but that's nothing new. > > > It was the thread "How to set up a shared repository". > > Okay, so there you are. You have a write-shared repository with the HEAD > checked out. Somebody wants to push to that with different credentials > than the user who checked out the files. Do you plainly deny updating the > current HEAD? > > If you do, then you better give the pushing user (pun intended) a way to > update the checked out files. You can do this by (tadaah) setting the > umask to 0002 also for working files. > Ahh. Sorry. We use this method a lot, really, but always only for running gitk and archaeology tools to check newly pushed changes, so the write-shared repo is only write-shared for remote users, and the local one never does a commit. It's perhaps a bit of a weird setup, but it lets you get an overview faster than gitweb and works well enough with samba. Noted should be that having the repo checked out is merely a convenience thing to let one browse the files at leisure. People know to do git checkout -f HEAD whenever they want to dig around. > Yes, we could find out exactly where writes happen inside GIT_DIR and plug > in shared.umask which is only applied in these cases, but I am totally > unconvinced that this is worth the hassle. In my cases, I am perfectly > helped by a umask which is respected throughout git, and the patch is > simple enough to be reviewed in 5 minutes. > But adding umask 002 to /etc/bashrc would do exactly the same thing, so why have it a setting for the repository only? In my experience, most servers used for hosting git repos host *lots* of them (look at master.kernel.org), so a server-wide setting really makes much more sense. If the server admin can't be bothered you can always change $HOME/.bashrc. So long as people remember that .bash_profile isn't read for non-interactive shells this should do nicely. If they can't remember that they won't remember adding the setting to the repository either. -- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlReceived on Thu Dec 22 23:29:00 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-12-22 23:29:07 EST