[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: sticky directory bit vs. loginfo chgrp
From: |
Richard Cobbe |
Subject: |
Re: sticky directory bit vs. loginfo chgrp |
Date: |
Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:39:12 -0600 (CST) |
Lo, on Tuesday, February 20, Paul D. Smith did write:
> However, it seems like overkill to me. I wonder why you couldn't just
> use sticky bits on the repository directory? Then all files and
> subdirectories created in that hierarchy would automatically inherit the
> gid of its containing (sticky bit set) directory, accomplishing the same
> goal with much less work.
I may be picking at nits, but I want to make sure I have this right before
I create a new repository at work.
Sticky bit or set-gid bit? I'd expect the latter.
Richard
- sticky directory bit vs. loginfo chgrp, Paul D. Smith, 2001/02/20
- Re: sticky directory bit vs. loginfo chgrp, Larry Jones, 2001/02/20
- Re: sticky directory bit vs. loginfo chgrp,
Richard Cobbe <=
- Re: sticky directory bit vs. loginfo chgrp, Larry Jones, 2001/02/21
- Re: sticky directory bit vs. loginfo chgrp, Laine Stump, 2001/02/22
- Re: sticky directory bit vs. loginfo chgrp, Larry Jones, 2001/02/22
- Re: sticky directory bit vs. loginfo chgrp, Laine Stump, 2001/02/22
- Re: sticky directory bit vs. loginfo chgrp, Derek R. Price, 2001/02/22
- Re: sticky directory bit vs. loginfo chgrp, Laine Stump, 2001/02/22