From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <3be98932eb2de4113901b957b015932e@cat-v.org>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] newaccount.html has gone missing
Date: Tue,  7 Mar 2006 14:23:23 +0100
From: uriel@cat-v.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0d884bf4-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

>> The problem is that that somewhat breaks patch(1), it still
>> works but spills a bunch of errors because it can't chmod
>> any files, and it shows up as created by none.
>
> then please submit a patch for patch.  patches need to be
> possible to create as none.
They can be created as none, but various things won't work, eg.,
you can't edit/delete it after you create it, and you can't chmod any
of the files either.

Would anyone complain if the email address is a required argument to
patch/create? If someone really doesn't want to provide a real email
address they can always provide a random string.

While we are at it, would it be ok if I moved the new patches
into an /incoming directory rather than keeping them in the top level
patch/ dir?

>> > you need to run 9fs sources; mount /srv/sources /n/sources
>> Question is, should we change patch(1) to do that?
>
> definitely not.  patches need to be possible to create as none.
> i think people with sources accounts should just change their
> /rc/bin/9fs scripts.  it's a good exercise.
Yes, except that then you have a file permanently out of sync with
sources, and the ensuing troubles with replica.

> the auto-account-creator was a clumsy hack that was
> difficult to maintain.  we were only using accounts as
> proof-of-clickthrough.  now that the clickthrough is gone,
> the need for accounts is gone too.
Yes, I think everyone is happy to see it gone.

> we'll still create accounts as necessary for people who
> need to write to sources (e.g., in contrib or other places).
> frequent patch submitters are welcome to ask too.
This seems reasonable to me.

uriel