On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:08:01AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 06:38:43PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > >> From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Git does not have slave branches and has never had. Independent > >> of any future change to the naming of branches, remove the sole > >> appearance of the term. > > > > I think this is a sensible change, though note that something simpler > > was proposed recently: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200610165441.iktvzuwz44sbytfg@chatter.i7.local/ > > > > and the review suggested using a name that is even more meaningful to > > the test case (so we not just remove the unwanted names, but make the > > test easier to follow). > > Thanks for spotting that both versions share the same issue. We'd > just need a single one that is fixed up ;-). How about s/slave/feature/ This is about simulating some development happening on the new branch so this name looks appropriate. Thanks Michal
