moved to xemacs-beta per Michael's suggestion. Stefan> Dear XEmacs-Community, Stefan> recently I submitted a patch to func-menu.el (adding ruby Stefan> support) which I improved again today (it went wrong when Stefan> a ruby file contains only a def but no class). Stefan> What am I supposed to do now? Patch against the original Stefan> func-menu.el again or patch against the already patched Stefan> version and write a changelog describing just that? ms> To answer the general question: It depends on whether your ms> patch has been applied yet to the package (edit-utils, in this ms> case). If yes, send a patch against the new version. If not, ms> against the old one. In the latter case, it'd be nice if you ms> could followup to your original mail submission and add ms> [REVISE] to the header. Er, we don't actually have a policy yet. I would prefer SUPERSEDE for patches that cancel the old one. Definitely try to do it as a followup to the original (so that References: contains a pointer to it). In the case where a patch won't apply without the earlier one, a key word like DEPENDS might be appropriate. Which to do depends on whether you are _fixing_ the old patch (and it should not be applied in its current form) or _extending_ (and the reviewers might want to accept one but not the other). In general it is probably most convenient to supersede, since we prefer that you do patches against CVS. ms> Moreover, this kind of question should be asked on xemacs-beta ms> or xemacs-review :-) I would like to propose the use of REVISE (implying "requested") as a reviewer action which is less final than a VETO. Although the review board will decide based mostly on its convenience, I think we should get opinions of the people who we are communicating with, too. -- University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091 _________________ _________________ _________________ _________________ What are those straight lines for? "XEmacs rules."