On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Jim Nasby <jim@nasby.net> wrote:
> On 9/29/13 9:41 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09/29/2013 10:38 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 2013-09-29 at 22:33 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well if these are not meant to be changed then not being able to write
>>>> them in your git repo might be a clue to that.
>>>
>>> Git doesn't support setting file permissions other than the executable
>>> bit, so this is a nonstarter.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, didn't know that, I've certainly know other SCM systems that do.
>
>
> We could potentially do it with git commit hooks, but the problem is that
> there's no way to force use of those on clients (a huge deficiency in git,
> imho).
We could also use git receive hooks, but those would be very hard to
override when you *do* need to modify the files (which you might
within a release).
What we could also do is just have the make all target, or the
configure script, (or something else a developer runs often) chmod the
file. It's not bulletproof in any way, but it would give a decent hint
in most cases.
-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
