Is a revisiting review bad?
A survey paper shouldn't just be the result of 'I did lots of reading'. There are two key types of survey I've come across. One is when some major result has been proved, and so it is time to do a 'round up' drawing together all the different ideas that go into it and with it. The second is when you've done lots of reading and have something useful to add as a result (ie the paper contains new research, on some level, as well as survey material).

I would say the issue isn't whether you 'revisit' something, but rather whether you try to publish work that doesn't add enough to the literature. No-one is going to really mind if you freely release an extended paper as an eprint for those who want to read it. On the other hand, trying to get published two separate papers that are nearly the same is not going to look so good.