Re: [PATCH] fetch: allow running as different users in shared repositories

On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 20:04:09 +0100 Johannes Schindelin wrote:

JS> Hi Vadim,

 Hello Johannes and thanks for your reply!

JS> On Thu, 19 Mar 2020, Vadim Zeitlin wrote: JS> JS> > The function fopen_for_writing(), which was added in 79d7582e32 (commit: JS> > allow editing the commit message even in shared repos, 2016-01-06) and JS> > used for overwriting FETCH_HEAD since ea56518dfe (Handle more file JS> > writes correctly in shared repos, 2016-01-11), didn't do it correctly in JS> > shared repositories under Linux. JS> > JS> > This happened because in this situation the file FETCH_HEAD has mode 644 JS> JS> I wonder why that is. In a shared repository, it should have mode 664, I JS> thought.

 This file is created using a simple fopen("w") and so is subject to umask.
With the usual default umask value (022) its mode would be 644, regardless
of the repository settings.

[...snip my original description...] JS> That rationale makes sense to me, as does the patch.

 Sorry for a possibly stupid question, but what is the next thing to do
now? The instructions in Documentation/SubmittingPatches indicate that I
should wait until the "list forms consensus that [...] your patch is good",
but it's not quite clear what indicates that a consensus has been reached.
Is your comment above enough or should I wait for something else? And
if/when it has been reached, do I really I need to resend the patch to
the maintainer and cc the list as written in that document? I'm a bit
surprised by this because I don't see (most) patches being resent to this
list.

 This is obviously very non-urgent, but I'd just like to understand what,
if anything, is expected from me.

 Thanks in advance for your guidance!
VZ