Skip to content

G
git

李少辉-开发者 / git
与 Fork 源项目一致

从无法访问的项目Fork

通知 2
Star 1
Fork 0
G
git

体验新版 GitCode，发现更多精彩内容 >>

切换分支/标签
  1. 07 1月, 2007 1 次提交
    • R
      Set default "tar" umask to 002 and owner.group to root.root · f08b3b0e
      由 René Scharfe 提交于 
      In order to make the generated tar files more friendly to users who
extract them as root using GNU tar and its implied -p option, change
the default umask to 002 and change the owner name and group name to
root.  This ensures that a) the extracted files and directories are
not world-writable and b) that they belong to user and group root.

Before they would have been assigned to a user and/or group named
git if it existed.  This also answers the question in the removed
comment: uid=0, gid=0, uname=root, gname=root is exactly what we
want.

Normal users who let tar apply their umask while extracting are
only affected if their umask allowed the world to change their
files (e.g. a umask of zero).  This case is so unlikely and strange
that we don't need to support it.
Signed-off-by: NRene Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
      f08b3b0e
  3. 06 1月, 2007 2 次提交
  5. 05 1月, 2007 10 次提交
  7. 04 1月, 2007 11 次提交
  9. 03 1月, 2007 4 次提交
    • J
      Fix infinite loop when deleting multiple packed refs. · 1084b845
      由 Junio C Hamano 提交于 
      It was stupid to link the same element twice to lock_file_list
and end up in a loop, so we certainly need a fix.

But it is not like we are taking a lock on multiple files in
this case.  It is just that we leave the linked element on the
list even after commit_lock_file() successfully removes the
cruft.

We cannot remove the list element in commit_lock_file(); if we
are interrupted in the middle of list manipulation, the call to
remove_lock_file_on_signal() will happen with a broken list
structure pointed by lock_file_list, which would cause the cruft
to remain, so not removing the list element is the right thing
to do.  Instead we should be reusing the element already on the
list.

There is already a code for that in lock_file() function in
lockfile.c.  The code checks lk->next and the element is linked
only when it is not already on the list -- which is incorrect
for the last element on the list (which has NULL in its next
field), but if you read the check as "is this element already on
the list?" it actually makes sense.  We do not want to link it
on the list again, nor we would want to set up signal/atexit
over and over.
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
      1084b845
    • A
      send pack check for failure to send revisions list · 825cee7b
      由 Andy Whitcroft 提交于 
      When passing the revisions list to pack-objects we do not check for
errors nor short writes.  Introduce a new write_in_full which will
handle short writes and report errors to the caller.  Use this to
short cut the send on failure, allowing us to wait for and report
the child in case the failure is its fault.
Signed-off-by: NAndy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
      825cee7b
    • E
      instaweb: load Apache mime and dir modules if they are needed · 44a167b0
      由 Eric Wong 提交于 
      I've noticed that Apache 2.2 on a Debian etch machine has
these compiled as modules.

Also set ServerName to avoid a warning at startup.
Signed-off-by: NEric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
      44a167b0
    • J
      fetch-pack: do not use lockfile structure on stack. · 54b9e022
      由 Junio C Hamano 提交于 
      They are used in atexit() for clean-up, and you will be
accessing unallocated memory at that point.

See 31f584c2 for the fix for a similar problem.
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
      54b9e022
  11. 02 1月, 2007 9 次提交
  13. 01 1月, 2007 3 次提交