[RFC] per-branch umask

[Robert Collins]

On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 10:41 +0100, Jan Hudec wrote:

> Sftp does not support setting umask, so doing chmod sounds reasonable
> there.
> 
> For local transport, why can't it:
> * set umask to 0
> * use os.open instead of open and pass the desired mode in.
> (depends on whether anything except local transport can create files).
> 
> They may not behave consistently with each other (since local transport
> would not modify permissions of existing files while sftp might), but I
> don't think there is a problem with that. Let's require all the storage
> files in .bzr have the same permissions.

A library setting my umask. Garh. No thanks.

Anyway, if chmod is ok for sftp & performance, it will be statistical
noise locally.

Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20051215/e0023a5e/attachment.pgp