RE: Git config command ignores explicitly set file permissions

From

Randall S. Becker <rsbecker@nexbridge.com>

Date

Jun 18, 2020, 21:37 UTC

Message-ID

<023601d645b8$b06f46f0$114dd4d0$@nexbridge.com>

In-Reply-To

<MN2PR02MB66237FBAE6695D80B1182BA5D89B0@MN2PR02MB6623.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>

On June 18, 2020 4:57 PM, Matthew wrote:

> > "Riddell, Matthew A" <mriddell@paychex.com> writes:
> > > I noticed while working with Git that the file permissions on the
> > > gitconfig file is ignored and the parent folder permissions are used
> > > instead to update the file.  An example is as follows:
> > >
> > > Before running git config ensure the user running the command is not
> > > able to edit the file but has read access to the file. Ensure the
> > > User has full access to the parent folder.  After running any git
> > > config command the user previously without edit permissions on a
> > > file can now edit the config file.
> 
> >>Forgive me to asking, but is this an attempt at replicating what other

VCS

> systems do? ClearCase is an example where files are forced to read-only

and

> if the user wants to modify it, then they have to ask nicely for a >>lock

on the

> file. The use of "read only" is a semi-guarantee that a user will not

modify

> code and interfere with other users. In git, the rules are quite

different,

> where modification resolution occurs later in the process.
> 
> We have had problems in our continuous integration environment with builds
> modifying the global configuration of tools. I came across this issue

trying to

> lock down our git global configuration for the local user running our

builds.

> The workaround I found is creating a symlink from the user home directory
> to another folder (which has read only permissions) which contains the
> actual gitconfig file.