Executable flagging patch

[george young]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 07:50:08 +1000
Martin Pool <martinpool at gmail.com> threw this fish to the penguins:

> On 05/10/05, george young <gry at ll.mit.edu> wrote:
> > On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 14:14:22 -0500
> > John A Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> threw this fish to the penguins:
> > > 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...]
> 
> > Bzr should preserve permissions bits just as slavishly as "tar".  Ok,
> > if a file lacks owner+r or a directory lacks owner+rwx, this prevents
> > bzr from doing it's job, so we can just punt with a rude error
> > message.  Otherwise, it should maintain permissions just as they are.
> > (I believe tla(gnu-arch) does this [it even seems to have some code
> > for preserving setuid, setgid, etc.])
> 
> But this seems to contradict your previous message that bzr should
> leave the permission bits alone.  arch had the behaviour that if i did
> 'tla update', permissions might change from 0644 to 0600.  I think
> that's not a good default behaviour (though it might be useful in
> particular cases).  Or maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "leave
> them alone".
> 
> I guess we should avoid having the 0001 bit set on branches which are
> not meant to be publicly readable.  It seems reasonable to me to do
> that using either the umask or the existing permissions of the file.

I'm sorry; I muddied the waters with my incorrect (and not very
relevant) understanding of tla.  I do mean that bzr should use the
existing permissions of the file.

-- George Young


-- 
"Are the gods not just?"  "Oh no, child.
What would become of us if they were?" (CSL)