>> 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
