Git branches have been qualified as topic branches, integration branches, development branches, feature branches, release branches and so on. Git has a branch that is the master *for* development, but it is not the master *of* any "slave branch": Git does not have slave branches, and has never had, except for a single testcase that claims otherwise. :) Independent of any future change to the naming of the "master" branch, removing this sole appearance of the term is a strict improvement: it avoids divisive language, and talking about "feature branch" clarifies which developer workflow the test is trying to emulate. Reported-by: Till Maas <tmaas@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> --- 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..958c2da56e 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 feature master && echo "Another line" >>file && test_tick && - git commit -am "Slave change #1" && + git commit -am "Feature branch change #1" && echo "Yet another line" >>file && test_tick && - git commit -am "Slave change #2" && + git commit -am "Feature branch change #2" && git checkout -b merger master && test_tick && - git merge --no-ff slave && + git merge --no-ff feature && git format-patch -3 --stdout >patch && grep "^From " patch >from && test_line_count = 3 from -- 2.25.4
