Re: Sources for 3.18-rc1 not uploaded

From: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
Date: Oct 22, 2014, 09:42 UTC
Message-ID: <54477C18.5060806@drmicha.warpmail.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqwq7tz3wt.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

Junio C Hamano schrieb am 21.10.2014 um 20:14:

Show 8 quoted lines

> Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:
> 
>> Unfortunately, the git archive doc clearly says that the umask is
>> applied to all archive entries.
> 
> Is an extended pax header "an archive entry"?  I doubt it, and the
> above is not relevant.  The mode bits for the archive entry that it
> applies to does not come from there.

The problem seem to be old tar versions which mis-take the extensions for archive entries, aren't they?

Show 10 quoted lines

> See my other message for my final judgement on this one.  I wouldn't
> have minded if the original used the same umask for those ignored
> mode bits, but changing the bits to be ignored after the fact is not
> helping any real use case and only hurts existing users.
> 
> That is not to say that we cannot later fix bigger issues in the
> output.  I just do not see that otherwise-unused mode bits in the
> extended pax header big enough an issue to spend brain cycles to
> carefully lay and execute transition plans to avoid breaking
> existing users.

My question to Brian still stands which existing users he was trying to cater for with his patch. If there indeed are no existing affected users besides the KUP users (as you seem to assume) it's a clear case. Pun intended ;)

As I pointed out (and you cut out), I don't mind doing the revert. I just want us to do the right things for the right reasons (the ones you ponted out, Junio).

Michael