From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julien Barnier Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add faces customization to quote and verse blocks Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:28:48 +0100 Message-ID: <873a4d6uhb.fsf@z.nozav.org> References: <877htv9203.fsf@z.nozav.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NAPzp-0002l4-Fq for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:29:33 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NAPzj-0002h1-BD for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:29:32 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36982 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NAPzi-0002gj-VM for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:29:27 -0500 Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:43825) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NAPzh-0007BT-Pn for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:29:26 -0500 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1NAPzZ-0005DT-92 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:29:17 +0100 Received: from z.nozav.org ([91.121.121.141]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:29:17 +0100 Received: from julien by z.nozav.org with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:29:17 +0100 List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi, > Here is a small patch that allows to add custom faces to QUOTE and VERSE > blocks. As I'm quite new to emacs lisp and as it is the first time I > submit a patch to a project, please feel free to correct or reject it if > its form or quality is not sufficient. Sorry to bother you with this, but I would be very interested to know why this patch has been rejected ? Is it because the "feature" it implements is not seen as useful ? Or because the code is of poor quality ? Is there some rewrite I could do to make it acceptable ? Thanks in advance, -- Julien