[RFC] per-branch umask

[Jan Hudec]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 17:07:04 +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> 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.

Ok or not, sftp does not support setting umask, so it's the only way
(short of requiring users to create wrapers for the sftp server).

-- 
						 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb at ucw.cz>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20051215/6d507f6a/attachment.pgp