Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Paul Jackson wrote:
Morten wrote:
It makes some sense in principle, but without storing what they mean
(i.e., group==?) it certainly makes no sense.
There's no they there.
I think Martin's proposal, to which I agreed, was to store a _single_
bit. If any
David wrote:
There's a minor reason to write out ALL the perm bit data, but
There's always the 'configurable option' approach.
Someone, I doubt Linus will have any interest in it, could volunteer to
make the masks of st_mode, used when storing and recovering file
permissions, be configurable by
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, David A. Wheeler wrote:
There's a minor reason to write out ALL the perm bit data, but
only care about a few bits coming back in: Some people use
SCM systems as a generalized backup system
Yes. I was actually thinking about having system config files in a git
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, David A. Wheeler wrote:
There's a minor reason to write out ALL the perm bit data, but
only care about a few bits coming back in: Some people use
SCM systems as a generalized backup system
Yes. I was actually thinking about having system config files in a
PJ == Paul Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PJ That matches my experience - store 1 bit of mode state - executable or not.
Sounds like svn ;-).
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
Junio wrote:
Sounds like svn
I have no idea what svn is.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.650.933.1373,
1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Does it really make sense to store full permissions in the trees? I think
that remembering the x-bit should be good enough for almost all purposes
and the other permissions should be left to the local environment.
It makes some sense in principle, but without storing what they mean
(i.e.,
Morten wrote:
It makes some sense in principle, but without storing what they mean
(i.e., group==?) it certainly makes no sense.
There's no they there.
I think Martin's proposal, to which I agreed, was to store a _single_
bit. If any of the execute permissions of the incoming file are set,
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Paul Jackson wrote:
Morten wrote:
It makes some sense in principle, but without storing what they mean
(i.e., group==?) it certainly makes no sense.
There's no they there.
I think Martin's proposal, to which I agreed, was to store a _single_
bit. If any of the
Paul Jackson wrote:
Junio wrote:
Sounds like svn
I have no idea what svn is.
svn = common abbreviation for Subversion, a
widely-used centralized SCM tool intentionally
similar to CVS.
--- David A. Wheeler
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in
the body of a message to
Linus wrote:
It might be ok to just change the compare cache check to only care
about a few bits, though: S_IXUSR and S_IFDIR. And then ...
I think I agree. But since I am reluctant to take enough time to
understand the code well enough to write this patch, I'll shut up now ;).
--
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Anybody want to send a patch to do this?
Actually, I just did it. Seems to work for the only test-case I tried,
namely I just committed it, and checked that the permissions all ended up
being recorded as 0644 in the tree (if it has the -x bit set,
12 matches
Mail list logo
