Eric Gillespie wrote:
>Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> writes:
>
>
>
>>Right. The umask is a policy decision, and one that our tools should stay
>>out of.
>>
>>
>
>Absolutely.
>
>
While I agree with you technically, practically I find the solution to
be nothing more than a workaround and annoying, complicated by the fact
that it has the side-effect that when using rav_local to check stuff out
of the repository the created working directory has the bogus group
write permissions set. The ideal solution would be to have options in
DB_CONFIG which specifies a umask and group ownershipe to use just for
the database. Obviously that is out of your hands, but perhaps there
could be a svn option which sets the umask while calling to the DB but
leaves it at the original value when working with the working directory.
Also, while the answer wasn't hard to find on the internet and in your
book, it wasn't easy to discover either. A better error message would
go a real long way here (and yes I know the error is coming from the DB,
which you have little control over). However, it is one more barrier to
getting people to use Subversion as an "easy to use" solution.
Thanks for the great tool!
Nathan
Received on Thu Mar 4 13:30:16 2004