From: Johannes Schindelin Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:27:09 GMT Subject: Re: git /objects directory created 755 by default? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7v3bkkkhwb.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Hi, On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > And then somebody comes along and allows world access by chmod(0775) and > > does not realize that *everybody* can delete packs, objects and what-nots > > in GIT_DIR. > > That somebody has to be somebody who owns .git directory not > just a group member, so that is not a serious objection either, > but you need to realize I was joking with 0777 -- a saner > default would obviously be 0775. Otherwise you would not be > able to server it from gitweb safely -- http server is typically > not a group member. I was talking about somebody who has only one server for everything: mail, web and git. So this somebody would be the owner of .git. > > Given the complexity we are talking about, and the needs which are not at > > all that complicated, why not just go with core.umask until somebody > > *needs* core.repositoryumask? > > I am afraid that is going backwards. Nobody *needs* core.umask > either, but we are still talking about this. Well, I do. > Your core.umask would make sure the .git/objects/ directory > would be suitable for other members, but git is not the only > tool the people would use in the working tree. To work well > with an editor that does not overwrite an existing file but does > creat/rename upon saving would require you to have a sane umask > if the user adopts your "shared working tree writable by all > members" workflow. Running "make" in the working tree would > leave object files, worse yet in a temporary build directory > make created, with permission bits masked with your umask, > making it imposible to run "make clean" for other members. Hmm. That is convincing. > we should be able to say "such and such things under .git/ in this > repository must be ug+rw regardless of user's umask". Yes, I tried to avoid that. Ciao, Dscho