Re: [Gnu-arch-users] BUG: feature request: 'tla chmod' which 'touch'es files

[Harald Meland]

[Matthew Dempsky]

>> From my understanding, the only "important" permission to keep track
>> of is the "executable" bit. So that when I write a script, it will
>> stay executable between checkin/checkout.
>
> Yeah, that seems important to me too.

I'm not sure if you're talking "permission bits to store in inode
sigs" or "permission bits that are versioned by Arch" here.

If it's the latter, a reduction of the current tla feature set to
include only a single "executable file" boolean (the way I think CVS
does this) would make Arch less suitable for e.g. keeping track of my
home-directory dotfiles; some of which I'd like to be world readable,
while other should only be readable by me.

>> As far as "ownership". That is something you definitely *do not*
>> want. If I check something into my tree, and you check it out, you
>> should be the owner. My user most likely does not exist on your
>> machine, and you wouldn't have the right to modify a file, or possibly
>> even read it.
>
> Both right.

The main reason I'd be sceptical to adding owner (and group) support,
is that it seems hard to find a generic answer to "When, if ever,
should patch application report mismatching owners as a conflict?"
-- 
Harald