I've endeavoured to improve on my previous patch, by adopting a
heuristic approach as follows:
1) First and foremost, for each file in the backup copy I try and
assign permissions based on those of the corresponding file in the
source repository, if the latter does indeed exist.
2) Should this fail, I infer the permissions from the context, i.e. I
choose one "typical file" from the same folder.
3) Should the folder itself be empty, I assign permissions based on
the current umask.
Do you deem such an approach to be correct?
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Roberto Reale
> Which behaviour would you deem correct?
> Just assigning a default permission set when the original file cannot
> be found, or inferring it from the file type (e.g., revision files
> should not be executable)?
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Philip Martin
> <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
>> Roberto Reale <roberto.reale82_at_gmail.com> writes:
>>> Do you think the patch can be improved in any regards?
>>> I would like to "breed it up", so to say, to an acceptable status.
>> Your patch assumes that all the files in the backup are still present in
>> the source repository and that is not always true. For example pack on
>> a FSFS repository could remove revision files, a commit to a BDB
>> repository could delete a log file. Any such files will cause archive
>> creation to fail with your patch.
>> Philip Martin
Received on 2015-10-26 20:57:12 CET