Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> wrote: > Am 03.05.2023 um 19:15 hat Juan Quintela geschrieben: >> Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > Am 27.04.2023 um 17:22 hat Juan Quintela geschrieben: >> >> Notice that we changed the test of ->has_block_bitmap_mapping >> >> for the test that block_bitmap_mapping is not NULL. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela <quint...@redhat.com> >> >> Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsement...@yandex-team.ru> >> >> >> >> --- >> >> >> >> Make it return const (vladimir) >> > >> > (I don't think this part was actually meant for the commit message) >> >> yeap. My understandig has always been that this is the way to put >> commenst for the email. > > Yes, but this only works if you then actually apply the patch from the > mail with "git am". Seems you directly cherry-picked your local commit > instead, so the comment below "---" has now become part of the git > history.
Oops. Yeap, I normally rebase my patches on top of upstream. > We were asked a while ago to always use "git am -m" to include the > Message-ID header from the email, so applying from the list is what we > should be doing anyway, even for our own patches. Oops. Will do from now on. Thanks.
