From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] newaccount.html has gone missing Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 11:25:25 +0100 From: uriel@cat-v.org In-Reply-To: <14ec7b180602190118r1b84d5eal70d9c8487530b7d2@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: 01cfe93e-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > from russ (received in a private email when i bugged him about it): > > 9fs sources says mount -n now. among other things, that means > people trying to 9fs sources as glenda don't get prompted endlessly > for a password they don't know. if you want to authenticate to sources > you need to run 9fs sources; mount /srv/sources /n/sources Question is, should we change patch(1) to do that? As mentioned, creating patches with the default 9fs sort of works, except that all the chmods fail and the patch is owned by none. I think having a 9fs sourcesauth that we could use either as convenience for people with contrib dirs and for things like patch(1) might make sense. If no one disagrees I will send the patch to do that. uriel