From: Benoit SIGOURE Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 07:48:23 GMT Subject: Re: confused about preserved permissions Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <85mywiixtp.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> On Aug 23, 2007, at 8:12 AM, David Kastrup wrote: > martin f krafft writes: > >> also sprach Junio C Hamano [2007.08.23.0009 >> +0200]: >>> We deliberately chose not to use that space, and this default is >>> very unlikely to change. >> >> The downsides included change in SHA hash on mode change, as far as >> I can remember. Anything else? > > The modes are recorded in patches and push/pull, so if you have > several people working with different permissions/umasks, you get > wagonloads of unnecessary patches and get your local permissions > messed up by other contributors. > > For colloborative work, you _really_ don't want to have _personal_ > preferences distributed. > > Any patch offering to optionally track permissions must make very sure > that it retains the possibility to have permissions in the directory > policed to the values that are actually a property of the source files > rather than the personal work environment. > Hmm yes, that's right. Let's look at the problem from another point of view then: I want my *working tree* to be group readable even though my umask is 066. Would it be possible to add a local config option in the .git repo to tell git that it should create new file this way (exactly like core.sharedRepository but core.sharedWorkingCopy or whatever). WDYT? -- Benoit Sigoure aka Tsuna EPITA Research and Development Laboratory