Re: renaming under CVS

[Noel Yap]

--- Paul Sander <address@hidden> wrote:
> >OTOH, it might be nice if such a command were
> >introduced anyway.
> 
> It's already needed; how many times have the execute
> bits been
> set incorrectly for various files?  I was figuring
> on adding
> at least this capability anyway.

Well, if we're thinking of mapping files and
directories to random archive names, we'll definitely
need to add a sort of "cvs chmod" command.

> I still need to be educated on how
> filesystem-supplied ACLs
> work on various Unix systems, but I'm under the
> impression
> that their implementations are proprietary and
> non-portable.
> This makes for a compelling reason not to support
> them.

AFAIK, they conform to a POSIX standard.

> On the other hand, assuming that ACL implementations
> can be
> abstracted out reasonably well, perhaps we can cut
> back on the
> bookkeeping by ignoring certain aspects of ACLs.  We
> could, for
> example, require that owners have write permission,
> and store
> execute permissions as attributes on the RCS files. 
> We could
> also treat world read access as an attribute and
> world write
> access would negate the need for any ACL tracking at
> all.
> So, we narrow down to just three cases:  Owner-only
> access
> (an easy special case), world write access (another
> easy special
> case), and tracking group read/write access using
> your method.
> For source control, I think that the execute bits
> can match read
> bits for those cases where execute access is needed
> (hence the
> attribute).

I see no reason not to leave this responsibility to
the file system.  If the file system doesn't support
ACL's, then the CVS implementation won't either.

Noel

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®
http://movies.yahoo.com/