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

[Zenaan Harkness]

> > > Permissions must be version controlled.
> >
> > Not by arch (other than maybe +x).
> 
> I agree. Deployment tools do a better job at handling permissions, 
> ownerships, ACLs, capabilities ., they know this kind of details 
> about the target OS; the version control tool does not.

No, but the user of the version control tool does.

However, the point is a good one to consider ("what meta data
should an SCM explicitly manage").

> Aside from simplifying the code, dropping the permission thing 
> completely from Arch allows read-only revlibs which as people 

<sarcasm tone=biting>
Oh I forgot - of course, there's no other way to achieve read-only
revlibs without completely dropping version management of perms.
Couldn't possibly be done any other way. Bitkeeper clearly uses fairy
dust to achieve this.
</>

> mentioned is good for hard-linked trees. When required, permissions 
> such as 'x' can be set from a hook, invoked at the end of each 
> tree-modifying command, based on information stored in the tree.