[Fwd: [PATCH] bzr tracks permissions]

[Aaron Bentley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John Arbash Meinel wrote:

> Basically, if it was in <meta-info> bzr would make sure to keep track of
> it, and probably tell you about conflicts, etc. But it wouldn't
> *understand* it.
> My goal for meta-info was to enable people to write plugins/etc which
> need to track per-file information, and want it revisioned.
> 
> The executable bit is different. I want bzr core to understand that bit.

Funtamentally, I don't think there's a big difference between core and
plugins.  If you ship a plugin with the rest of bzr, it's core.

I did an executible-bit version a while back, and I based it on
properties.  I also handled the is_text property, so we can avoid doing
diffs or textual merges on non-text files.

My sense is that we quickly run into code duplication.  Better to have
one set of code.  In particular, windows users will need a way to
control the execute bit, and it would be nice to have just one command
to set any property.

For each property, you'd be able to supply
- - a way to verify and canonicalize values
- - a to determine values (e.g.,lstat for POSIX, and inventory or default
value for Windows)
- - a three-way merger

This allows you to write full POSIX permission support or anything else
in exactly the same way.

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDMZy40F+nu1YWqI0RAo2bAJ9at/eVi8Qgg7+ltDJF+EYDnjxWAACeNeVr
hFl5LIxZfceIbJAi1rZE9YE=
=xxeP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----