On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Jan Hudec wrote:

quoted text
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 08:14:11 +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
>> also sprach Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> [2007.09.16.0014 +0200]:
>>> While at it, you should invent a fallback what to do when the
>>> owner is not present on the system you check out on.  And
>>> a fallback when checking out on a filesystem that does not support
>>> owners.
>>
>> Like rsync, git would use numerical UIDs (which are always present)
>> by default, but could be told to try to map account names.
>>
>> If the filesystem does not support owners, chown() would not exist.
>> I actually tend to think of things the other way around: instead of
>> a fallback when chown() does not work (what would such a fallback be
>> other than not chown()ing?), it would only try chown() if such
>> functionality existed.
>
> There's a problem. You need to know that the functionality is missing and not
> try to read attributes back, but instead consider them unchanged. Nothing
> that can't be taken care of, but it needs to be handled carefuly.

but this can be handled by a local config option. yes, you have to be 
careful, but it'snot that hard.

David Lang
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html