"Berndl, Klaus" <klaus.berndl(a)sdm.de&gt; writes: For certain values of 1, yes ;-) norbert.

Klaus> To be more precise here: Of course i could generate patches Klaus> which are simply diffs between the old-version (contained Klaus> in the package-version <next> - 1) and the new version Klaus> (contained in the forthcoming release as a XEmacs-package). APA> I think this would be valuable. <AOL> It _is_ really useful to know exactly what was applied on occasion. </AOL> Klaus> But this will be often really large diffs/patches. APA> I just did cvs diff -N -D 2003-03-24 xemacs-packages\ecb and APA> the resulting patch is 160KB. Which is not a terribly big patch. xemacs-patches will happily distribute that. If you really prefer, an alternative would be to CVS tag, apply and commit the changes, and then CVS tag again, and put a reference to the tags in the ChangeLog. You really do need to tag specifically around your patch because XEmacs maintainers will make various changes, some trivial like bumping VERSION in the Makefile, but at other times they may fix bugs and stuff, and it's very important to know which fixes are done by XEmacs and which by upstream. However, as Adrian points out people can and do search xemacs-patches archives for a particular line to see if it has been changed. Without precise ChangeLogs it's hard to catch changes in function definitions (as our standard patch format does not include the function name), unfortunately. As an alternative to precise ChangeLogs, you might consider using the -p flag (if cvs diff supports that). -- Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Ask not how you can "do" free software business; ask what your business can "do for" free software.