threads / patch / 19885

patchclone: add --perm option to clone an shared repository

Subject: [PATCH] clone: add --perm option to clone an shared repository

## tl;dr

5 messages between Jun 21, 2009 and Jun 28, 2009. Diffs are folded; open one to read it.

replies: 4people: 3as markdown or json

Roy Lee· Jun 21, 2009, 12:17 UTC · lore

The term 'shared' used here is in the same context with git init. Unfortunately the 'shared' option has been taken, so I took the "perm" as a place holder in this patch. Any comments?

Signed-off-by: Roy Lee <roylee17@gmail.com>
---
 Documentation/git-clone.txt |   40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 builtin-clone.c             |    7 +++++++
 2 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
Show changes to 2 files +46 −1

Documentation/git-clone.txt, builtin-clone.c

diff --git a/Documentation/git-clone.txt b/Documentation/git-clone.txt
index b14de6c..b35818d 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-clone.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-clone.txt
@@ -12,7 +12,8 @@ SYNOPSIS
 'git clone' [--template=<template_directory>]
 	  [-l] [-s] [--no-hardlinks] [-q] [-n] [--bare] [--mirror]
 	  [-o <name>] [-u <upload-pack>] [--reference <repository>]
-	  [--depth <depth>] [--] <repository> [<directory>]
+	  [--depth <depth>] [--perm[=<permissions>]]
+	  [--] <repository> [<directory>]
 
 DESCRIPTION
 -----------
@@ -139,6 +140,43 @@ then the cloned repository will become corrupt.
 	with a long history, and would want to send in fixes
 	as patches.
 
+--perm[={false|true|umask|group|all|world|everybody|0xxx}]::
+
+Specify that the git repository is to be shared amongst several users.  This
+allows users belonging to the same group to push into that
+repository.  When specified, the config variable "core.sharedRepository" is
+set so that files and directories under `$GIT_DIR` are created with the
+requested permissions.  When not specified, git will use permissions reported
+by umask(2).
+
+The option can have the following values, defaulting to 'group' if no value
+is given:
+
+ - 'umask' (or 'false'): Use permissions reported by umask(2). The default,
+   when `--perm` is not specified.
+
+ - 'group' (or 'true'): Make the repository group-writable, (and g+sx, since
+   the git group may be not the primary group of all users).
+   This is used to loosen the permissions of an otherwise safe umask(2) value.
+   Note that the umask still applies to the other permission bits (e.g. if
+   umask is '0022', using 'group' will not remove read privileges from other
+   (non-group) users). See '0xxx' for how to exactly specify the repository
+   permissions.
+
+ - 'all' (or 'world' or 'everybody'): Same as 'group', but make the repository
+   readable by all users.
+
+ - '0xxx': '0xxx' is an octal number and each file will have mode '0xxx'.
+   '0xxx' will override users' umask(2) value (and not only loosen permissions
+   as 'group' and 'all' does). '0640' will create a repository which is
+   group-readable, but not group-writable or accessible to others. '0660' will
+   create a repo that is readable and writable to the current user and group,
+   but inaccessible to others.
+
+By default, the configuration flag receive.denyNonFastForwards is enabled
+in shared repositories, so that you cannot force a non fast-forwarding push
+into it.
+
 <repository>::
 	The (possibly remote) repository to clone from.  See the
 	<<URLS,URLS>> section below for more information on specifying
diff --git a/builtin-clone.c b/builtin-clone.c
index 2ceacb7..ee31d64 100644
--- a/builtin-clone.c
+++ b/builtin-clone.c
@@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ static const char * const builtin_clone_usage[] = {
 static int option_quiet, option_no_checkout, option_bare, option_mirror;
 static int option_local, option_no_hardlinks, option_shared;
 static char *option_template, *option_reference, *option_depth;
+static char *option_perm = NULL;
 static char *option_origin = NULL;
 static char *option_upload_pack = "git-upload-pack";
 static int option_verbose;
@@ -59,6 +60,9 @@ static struct option builtin_clone_options[] = {
 		    "don't use local hardlinks, always copy"),
 	OPT_BOOLEAN('s', "shared", &option_shared,
 		    "setup as shared repository"),
+	{ OPTION_STRING, 0, "perm", &option_perm, "mode",
+		    "the repository is to be shared amongst several users",
+		    PARSE_OPT_OPTARG, NULL, (intptr_t)"group" },
 	OPT_STRING(0, "template", &option_template, "path",
 		   "path the template repository"),
 	OPT_STRING(0, "reference", &option_reference, "repo",
@@ -376,6 +380,9 @@ int cmd_clone(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
 		option_no_checkout = 1;
 	}
 
+	if (option_perm)
+		shared_repository = git_config_perm("arg", option_perm);
+
 	if (!option_origin)
 		option_origin = "origin";
 
-- 
1.6.3.2.316.gda4e.dirty
Paolo Bonzini· Jun 22, 2009, 08:17 UTC · re: Roy Lee · lore

Re: [PATCH] clone: add --perm option to clone an shared repository

Roy Lee wrote:
> The term 'shared' used here is in the same context with git init.
> Unfortunately the 'shared' option has been taken, so I took the "perm"
> as a place holder in this patch. Any comments?

I think it would make sense to add "perm" to git-init too (and possibly deprecate --shared).

Paolo
Johannes Schindelin· Jun 22, 2009, 09:34 UTC · re: Paolo Bonzini · lore

Re: [PATCH] clone: add --perm option to clone an shared repository

Hi,
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Show 7 quoted lines
> Roy Lee wrote:
> > The term 'shared' used here is in the same context with git init.
> > Unfortunately the 'shared' option has been taken, so I took the "perm"
> > as a place holder in this patch. Any comments?
> 
> I think it would make sense to add "perm" to git-init too (and possibly
> deprecate --shared).

Agreed. After we teach everybody on this planet that "perm" means "shared", and "shared" does not.

Ciao, Dscho

Paolo Bonzini· Jun 22, 2009, 10:19 UTC · re: Johannes Schindelin · lore

Re: [PATCH] clone: add --perm option to clone an shared repository

Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Show 13 quoted lines
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 
>> Roy Lee wrote:
>>> The term 'shared' used here is in the same context with git init.
>>> Unfortunately the 'shared' option has been taken, so I took the "perm"
>>> as a place holder in this patch. Any comments?
>> I think it would make sense to add "perm" to git-init too (and possibly
>> deprecate --shared).
> 
> Agreed.  After we teach everybody on this planet that "perm" means 
> "shared", and "shared" does not.

Or instead of teaching everybody on this planet that "shared" means "set permissions for sharing" in one context, and "use hard links and set up .git/objects/info/alternates, which by the way may be dangerous" in another. :-)

But you made me think, and maybe it is better to remove argument-less --shared instead. What Roy introduced seems much more useful in practice.

Paolo
Roy Lee· Jun 28, 2009, 14:30 UTC · re: Paolo Bonzini · lore

Re: [PATCH] clone: add --perm option to clone an shared repository

Hi,
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Paolo Bonzini<bonzini@gnu.org> wrote:
Show 28 quoted lines
> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>> Roy Lee wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The term 'shared' used here is in the same context with git init.
>>>> Unfortunately the 'shared' option has been taken, so I took the "perm"
>>>> as a place holder in this patch. Any comments?
>>>
>>> I think it would make sense to add "perm" to git-init too (and possibly
>>> deprecate --shared).
>>
>> Agreed.  After we teach everybody on this planet that "perm" means
>> "shared", and "shared" does not.
>
> Or instead of teaching everybody on this planet that "shared" means "set
> permissions for sharing" in one context, and "use hard links and set up
> .git/objects/info/alternates, which by the way may be dangerous" in another.
> :-)
>
> But you made me think, and maybe it is better to remove argument-less
> --shared instead.  What Roy introduced seems much more useful in practice.
>
> Paolo
>

This patch intends to provide the functionality for git clone to convert existing repositories to "shared" ones.

Have we come to agreement to add such functionality? If so, how do we get to the agreement on the used terms or other issues?

← back to recent threads