TEC <tecosaur@gmail.com> writes:

> Juan Manuel Macías <maciaschain@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.
>