In the interest of moving towards working better out of the box, I'd
like to propose that we set the g+s bit on the repository db
directory, in both back ends. Arguments in favor:
* g+s semantics are essentially never the wrong thing, particularly
for a self-contained unit like a repository. On *BSD systems, g+s
is a no-op.
* With the FSFS back end, this makes Subversion much closer to
working out of the box for multi-uid access. Even with the BDB
back end, you could win naively if your umasks happen to be set
liberally, and it's one fewer step on the checklist.
* If we accept at least the --group part of John Peacock's proposal
from http://www.contactor.se/~dast/svn/archive-2003-09/0467.shtml,
then setting up a group-accessible FSFS repository (or BDB
repository if umasks are liberal) could be done with no manual
tweaking whatsoever. We'd take the existence of a --group option
to mean that the initial structure should be set g+rw[x] and owned
by the specified group.
A more focused, though in my mind less desirable, alternative would be
to make FSFS chgrp new rev and rev-prop files to match the group owner
of the previous rev. That effectively simulates the g+s option.
CVS doesn't do this, but I have no idea why not, since it seems to
defeat most of the purpose of umask-bashing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jun 22 19:52:29 2004