Are you sure you want the sticky bit? I would think you might want the
"set group ID on execution bit" instead so that when users who are all
members of your svn group do things to a common WC, they do it as a
member of svn group. This would look like:
find . -type d|xargs chmod g+s
cheers,
+ seth
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 12:23:19AM -0000, y2w2de9j001@sneakemail.com wrote:
> I think I've done all of this and I still get problems. I've never set the sticky bit on a directory so please correct me if this was the wrong way to do it:
>
> find . -type d | xargs chmod +t
>
> Then, I checked out a module from a repository as user A. Then, as user B, I did a 'svn up' in that WC, which failed because it couldn't chmod .svn/entries (as a result of the sticky bit being set?). This fails repeatedly. At this point, .svn/entries is still owned by user A.
>
> Then, as user A, attempt to 'svn up' in that WC. SVN will dutifully move .svn/tmp/entries over top of .svn/entries, but now .svn/entries will be owned by user B. User A can not update his WC.
>
> The only way that user A can regain control of his own WC is if user B does a 'svn up' in the WC which fails. Then, user A can successfully complete a 'svn up' because the permissions on .svn/entries have been switched back by user B (in combination with the sticky bit?).
>
> With the right combinations of 'svn up' commands between user A and B, they can manage to allow either one to have control of the repository but it's not entirely clear to me how they do this. They both cannot have control, though, and neither one can unilaterally gain control that I know of.
>
> Am I doing things right? Is there something else I might be missing?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Scott
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Branko Cibej brane-at-xbc.nu |Subversion/1.0-Allow| [mailto:q8cmhkv3bi0t@sneakemail.com]
> Sent: Tue 12/9/2003 6:29 PM
> To: Scott Wolford
> Cc: y2w2de9j001@sneakemail.com; users@subversion.tigris.org; dev@subversion.tigris.org
> Subject: Re: WC permissions
> Ryan Hunt wrote:
>
> > On Dec 9, 2003, at 12:15 PM, y2w2de9j001@sneakemail.com wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> What are the fundamental problems with allowing more than two people
> >> from working within the same WC, other than that svn is chmod'ing
> >> files that it might not need to, then failing with EPERM?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Scott
> >
> >
> > I would like to know this too as it is becoming more and more
> > essential that all users of my repository use the same WC. My full WC
> > is currently 200GB and scheduled to be 5TB within 6-9 months. This
> > will be impossible to maintain more than a couple of WCs.
> >
> > Is this going to be allowed in future versions, or does anyone have a
> > work around?
>
> The only way I know to do this on Unix (if your filesystem doesn't have
> inheritable ACLs) is to put all your users into the same group (doesn't
> have to be the primary group), use umask 002 and set the sticky-group
> bit on the directories in the subversion WC.
>
> --
> Brane Cibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Dec 10 17:12:26 2003