Hello,
Brian Carlson writes:
> Should I have made the changes to contrib/orgmanual.org rather than
> doc/org.texi. Or should I have made changes to both?
Changes to both is fine.
I applied your patch. Thank you.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Goaziou
On 2016-05-26 02:52, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
I realize that the org texinfo manual probably needs to be updated, as well.
I'll take a stab at updating that unless
someone else wants to take that on.
You're right. You can merge ORG-NEWS modifications into the
documentation patch.
I just
On 2016-05-26 02:52, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
I realize that the org texinfo manual probably needs to be updated, as well.
I'll take a stab at updating that unless
someone else wants to take that on.
You're right. You can merge ORG-NEWS modifications into the
documentation patch.
Here is
On 2016-05-26 02:52, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
Hello,
Brian Carlson writes:
I put the signed paperwork into the mail this evening.
Great.
Sure. I'll use previous entries as a starting point.
I was thinking that the entry should go under: Version 9.0/New
Hello,
Brian Carlson writes:
> I put the signed paperwork into the mail this evening.
Great.
> Sure. I'll use previous entries as a starting point.
> I was thinking that the entry should go under: Version 9.0/New
> Features/Export/
> unless there's a more appropriate
On 2016-05-24 16:33, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> Completing myself
Great. Thanks! Very much appreciated. I went back and forth on the tests
with the "string formatting." I should have gone with my original thoughts ;)
The fixes to (org-export-get-loc) were a bit beyond my skill level.
I don't work
Completing myself
Nicolas Goaziou writes:
> Applied, with a small refactoring. Thank you.
>
> Please let us know when the FSF paperwork is done
Also, could you provide and ORG-NEWS entry for that patch?
Thank you.
Regards,
Hello,
Brian Carlson writes:
> I believe that I addressed all your review comments/recommendations.
> I am submitting the latest patch. This patch also include some
> additions to /testing/lisp/test-ox.el to test the feature. All of the
> existing tests pass (without
On 2016-05-20 16:48, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
The code is written with the following design:
-n is the same as -n 1 : The functionality is unchanged
+n is the same as +n 1 : The functionality is unchanged
-n X will "reset" and start new code block starting at line X
+n X will "add" X