On 19-06-2020 15:02, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > 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. :) > I wonder if "claims" is too strong a word here. "... hints otherwise" sounds better to me. > 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> Other than that and the comment by Danh elsewhere this patch looks good to me. > --- > 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 > -- Sivaraam
