On Wednesday, March 27, 2002, at 01:28 PM, cmpilato@collab.net wrote:
> Part of my own reason for originally wanted NO perm versioning, and
> then conceding that the execute bit would be an okay thing, is bad
> experiece with CVS.
>
> Specifically, I have some cgi scripts and such that I keep under CVS
> and use on various machines, machines whose httpd setups require
> different things from cgi scripts (some run as my userid, some run as
> nobody, etc). So on some machines, files that written-to/read-by my
> scripts, most of which I *also* keep versioned, need to be world
> writable/readable, and on some machine only readable/writable by
> myself. CVS *always* screws this up, removing bits were they are
> needed and adding them where they aren't. This *really* annoys me.
>
> So, initially my thoughts were very simple -- what business is it of a
> version control system to pay attention to file perms, which in my
> opinion are more like OS metadata than file attributes?! However, I
> have since yielded grounded over the execute bit, though I still am
> not a proponent of even that.
Well, clearly versioning of permissions is not always desirable. But
there are many cases where it is. We ran into this issue with keyword
expansion and line ending conversion as well. I doubt anyone is
advocating that permissions must be versioned on all a files subversion
deals with. By the same token, the fact that CVS's implementation
didn't work very well doesn't imply that Subversion should not attempt
to do better.
Or to look at it another way, what business is it of a version control
system to tell me which attributes of my files are significant and which
aren't?
Colin
Colin Putney www.whistler.com
Information Systems (877) 932-0606
Whistler.com (604) 935-0035 x221
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Mar 27 23:46:22 2002