Yes, they got separated bug IDs, next time I should probably consider modifying the patch headers so that they are sent in reply to the cover letter.
The first patch has been merged ( https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=59992). The second has been divided in 2: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=59993#23 and https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=60962 (I replied to the wrong message when sending the v3) Fred. On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 11:29 PM Karl Berry <k...@freefriends.org> wrote: > However, neither in this mail, nor in your original did I find a > corresponding patch. > > Hi Jim - they ended up with separate bug#s, since separate emails. > At least I think these are those: > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=59992 (applied by mike?) > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=59993 > > BTW, see also the next bug, > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=59994 > for more from Frederic, about flex madness. > > karl > >
