Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Switch to "test" and "testbranch" in order to avoid using divisive > language. If this were to call the side branch getting merged with the word that literally means that (i.e. call it "side", not "testbranch", and match the log message to say something like "change made on the side branch"), then you do not even have to mention that this is about "avoiding" divisive language but more about using the more meaningful words that are useful in helping readers understand what is going on. Yes, I do not necessarily oppose to "avoid divisive language" just for the sake of avoiding it, but I do prefer to see changes done to use language that conveys our intention better at the same time, since we would be finding different words and phrases anyway. Thanks. > > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > t/t4014-format-patch.sh | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/t/t4014-format-patch.sh b/t/t4014-format-patch.sh > index 575e079cc2..e6e7995d90 100755 > --- a/t/t4014-format-patch.sh > +++ b/t/t4014-format-patch.sh > @@ -81,16 +81,16 @@ test_expect_success 'format-patch --ignore-if-in-upstream handles tags' ' > ' > > test_expect_success "format-patch doesn't consider merge commits" ' > - git checkout -b slave master && > + git checkout -b testbranch master && > echo "Another line" >>file && > test_tick && > - git commit -am "Slave change #1" && > + git commit -am "Test change #1" && > echo "Yet another line" >>file && > test_tick && > - git commit -am "Slave change #2" && > + git commit -am "Test change #2" && > git checkout -b merger master && > test_tick && > - git merge --no-ff slave && > + git merge --no-ff testbranch && > git format-patch -3 --stdout >patch && > grep "^From " patch >from && > test_line_count = 3 from > > base-commit: 0313f36c6ebecb3bffe6f15cf25a4883100f0214
