Unico Hommes wrote: > I thought that previously all xpatches for all blocks were > executed in one go instead of separately and respecting > dependency order. No, one patch after the other was applied previously. The order of the dependencies was used to define the order of the patches to be applied. So, if the dependencies were correctly set, no problem could occur.
Carsten > And that this was the root of the problem. > But I am not sure. I also would prefer using the dependency > information to dynamically arrange patch order instead. >
