[9fans] newaccount.html has gone missing

[9fans] newaccount.html has gone missing

[Frank Gleason]

http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9/newaccount.html
'The object plan9/newaccount.html does not exist on this server.'

Anyone know the URL for an update account?

fg

Re: [9fans] newaccount.html has gone missing

[geoff]

Russ says that accounts are not needed any more to connect to sources
(and thus to pull) and the current /bin/9fs seems to support that
claim:

case sources
	srv -q tcp!sources.cs.bell-labs.com sources
	mount -n /srv/sources /n/sources

mount -n skips authentication entirely.

Re: [9fans] newaccount.html has gone missing

[uriel]

> Russ says that accounts are not needed any more to connect to sources
> (and thus to pull) and the current /bin/9fs seems to support that
> claim:
> 
> case sources
> 	srv -q tcp!sources.cs.bell-labs.com sources
> 	mount -n /srv/sources /n/sources
> 
> mount -n skips authentication entirely.

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.

Also if you have a sources/contrib account you need to modify
your local 9fs to remove the -n.

Maybe we should add a sourcesauth entry to 9fs? 

uriel

Re: [9fans] newaccount.html has gone missing

[geoff]

I'll confess that I still use an authenticating mount for sources.
It does seem that sources accounts still serve a purpose, so perhaps
they ought to be optionally available.

Re: [9fans] newaccount.html has gone missing

[jmk]

Russ is offline for a couple of days and I'm jetlagged.
Next week, after I've been to the big NYC President's Day
Parade, the one with marching bands, the Mayor leading
the AGMV (Anything that Get's Me a Vote) section and the
giant inflatables of former Presidents, we'll think about
it.

Re: [9fans] newaccount.html has gone missing

[andrey mirtchovski]

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

Re: [9fans] newaccount.html has gone missing

[uriel]

> 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

Re: [9fans] newaccount.html has gone missing

[Russ Cox]

> http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9/newaccount.html
> 'The object plan9/newaccount.html does not exist on this server.'

where did you find this link?  i thought i removed
all the ones on the bell-labs site.  as i mentioned in
the email to 9fans about the new web site, accounts
are no longer needed, so the account-creation
mechanisms are turned off.

> 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.

> > 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.  

> I'll confess that I still use an authenticating mount for sources.
> It does seem that sources accounts still serve a purpose, so perhaps
> they ought to be optionally available.

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.

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.

russ

Re: [9fans] newaccount.html has gone missing

[Frank Gleason]

I found it while trying to figure out why pull was driving my crazy.  
The 'Staying up to Date' page
needs some updating.


On Feb 19, 2006, at 11:20 AM, Russ Cox wrote:

>> http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9/newaccount.html
>> 'The object plan9/newaccount.html does not exist on this server.'
>
> where did you find this link?  i thought i removed
> all the ones on the bell-labs site.  as i mentioned in
> the email to 9fans about the new web site, accounts
> are no longer needed, so the account-creation
> mechanisms are turned off.
>
>> 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.
>
>>> 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.
>
>> I'll confess that I still use an authenticating mount for sources.
>> It does seem that sources accounts still serve a purpose, so perhaps
>> they ought to be optionally available.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> russ

Re: [9fans] newaccount.html has gone missing

[uriel]

>> 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

Re: [9fans] newaccount.html has gone missing

[Russ Cox]

> 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.

Did this.

> 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?

Will not do this.  It is just not hard to do
ls | grep -v '^(applied|saved|sorry)$'
or to test -f $d/files.  I type these paths a lot
and don't want to type /incoming/ in the common case.

> 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.

It's true you can't chmod (wstat).  You can still edit and delete it.
I just tried to make sure.  I have silenced the chmods.

> Yes, except that then you have a file permanently out of sync with
> sources, and the ensuing troubles with replica.

You already have files permanently out of sync with sources.
These include /lib/ndb/local and /mail/lib/rewrite.  We fully
expect people to edit these and /rc/bin/9fs locally and we
promise to change them only rarely.  There are no "ensuing troubles"
as long as you tell replica to ignore changes to the particular file.
Doing so is even easier with the new command line options.

Russ