Executable flagging patch

[John A Meinel]

george young wrote:

>
> I strongly believe that a rcs should leave the permissions bits
> however the user set them.  It may not *usually* be useful or
> appropriate for 'other' to have x but not r, but I really don't think
> bzr should be making decisions about what permissions ought to be.
> Just do your best to maintain what the user set, and that will be
> fine.
> [my appolgies if I have misunderstood the substance of this discussion...]
>

The question is *which* X bit do you check? Any of them? If any, then do
you set all of them?
Do you track them each individually?

I think my preference is to check for the User bit, and set all of them,
according to the umask. Either that, or check for Any, and again, set
according to umask.

And to not check for Directories. Since they should always be X bit anyway.

As far as ChangeExecuteBit, I think it should be a separate class. When
we implement tracking the full permissions, then we can switch to
ChangeUnixPermissions (and not have an individual Change object for each
bit).
But what we are doing with the executable bit is pretty different from
what we would do with tracking all bits. (I have a feeling they will be
in fairly different code paths at that point).

John
=:->
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20051004/6f406218/attachment.pgp