From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <f4d8fa40812021205h5617e876s1815ba5548d04483@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue,  2 Dec 2008 21:05:16 +0100
From: hiro <23hiro@googlemail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net>
In-Reply-To: <1228246473.16585.27.camel@goose.sun.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <1FAD6133-18F8-444F-BD6E-795999DE3170@sun.com>
	<dd6fe68a0812010948w60686277g2bbf54da7078d2bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<1228155909.18951.33.camel@goose.sun.com>
	<dd6fe68a0812011655u53e37741lca3a1d7c764ef3a1@mail.gmail.com>
	<1228241097.7593.40.camel@goose.sun.com>
	<20081202183153.GW3331@masters10.cs.jhu.edu>
	<1228246473.16585.27.camel@goose.sun.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] How to implement a moral equivalent of automounter in
	Plan9?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 55c88af2-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> I *suspect* that this is, indeed, the dance Russ was referring to.
> Nothing wrong with dancing it. But it still leaves me curious
> as to why it was decided to *not* implement the support in the
> kernel.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
>
>

I still don't understand what kind of feature you are missing. Could
it be that you just want a naming convention for your mount places?