On 12/22/05, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote: > > > > > > What would shell.umask do? Be set only when git-shell is called? Then you > > > better have the policy to access that particular repository *only* via > > > git-shell. Voila, it is the same effect as of core.umask. > > > > I mean it to be set only when git-shell called, but with explicit semantics > > ("for git-shell only"). > > But if somebody writes to the same repository with another umask, say > 0022, you have problems. Example: > > - I push -- via ssh/bash -- to the repository. The ref refs/heads/bruchpilot > is updated (mode: 0644). > > - My colleague pushes -- via ssh/git-shell -- to the repository. When she > tries to write refs/heads/bruchpilot, it fails, even if she set the > correct umask. > > See what I mean? It makes no sense to allow different umasks on the > repository. Does it make sense to allow different access methods to a shared repository? > > > What would shared.umask do? Be set only when writing to GIT_DIR? This is a > > > major task, since you have to find out which writes are to the working > > > directory, which ones go to GIT_DIR. > > > > shared.mask = shell.mask. Just a name to express what it is for > > You do mean different umasks for different access methods, don't you? See > above why I don't think that makes sense. No, just different names for the same access method. - 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 Fri Dec 23 02:14:58 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-12-23 02:15:06 EST