Juan Manuel Macías <maciasch...@posteo.net> writes:
> Thank you very much for your response and your comments. Seriously, thanks for the patch. I think the ML is usually a bit more responsive, but it seems to be a bit quiet at the moment. > I agree to name "Insert, include, etc." the attribute to include > arbitrary LaTeX code, better than "options". Glad my feedback seems to have gone down well :). If the only likely use of this is adjusting the font, perhaps for the sake of consistency we can match the behaviour of tables, which take a :font LaTeX attribute? > Of course, I can add the necessary documentation to the files you tell > me. As I am new to submitting patches, I don't really know how to > proceed: do I have to send you the new version of the patch, with the > documentation? Should I send a new email with all of it to this list? Thanks for asking. Sometimes it seems the maintainers take the trouble of adding an ORG-NEWS entry or minor touching ups to the patch, but I think it's nice to leave as little for them to do as possible :) Announce changes in: etc/ORG-NEWS Document new/different behaviour in: doc/org-manual.org I think Markup for /Rich Contents > Paragraphs/ may be the right place to add a description of this functionality --- verse blocks are discussed around line 10750. Regarding how patches on this ML work, this is what I've observed: - Initial version of patch submitted, with justification/explanation - Feedback may be given - Revisions of the patch are attached in replies to feedback - Process repeats until everyone's happy - Patch is merged i.e. it all tends to happen in the same thread. Hope this helps, Timothy.
