Re: [PATCH] A proposal to add LaTeX attributes to verse blocks

[TEC]

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.