Skip to content

Commit 08dc260

Browse files
bonzinigitster
authored andcommitted
t4014: do not use "slave branch" nomenclature
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 <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <[email protected]>
1 parent af6b65d commit 08dc260

File tree

1 file changed

+4
-4
lines changed

1 file changed

+4
-4
lines changed

t/t4014-format-patch.sh

Lines changed: 4 additions & 4 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -81,16 +81,16 @@ test_expect_success 'format-patch --ignore-if-in-upstream handles tags' '
8181
'
8282

8383
test_expect_success "format-patch doesn't consider merge commits" '
84-
git checkout -b slave master &&
84+
git checkout -b feature master &&
8585
echo "Another line" >>file &&
8686
test_tick &&
87-
git commit -am "Slave change #1" &&
87+
git commit -am "Feature branch change #1" &&
8888
echo "Yet another line" >>file &&
8989
test_tick &&
90-
git commit -am "Slave change #2" &&
90+
git commit -am "Feature branch change #2" &&
9191
git checkout -b merger master &&
9292
test_tick &&
93-
git merge --no-ff slave &&
93+
git merge --no-ff feature &&
9494
git format-patch -3 --stdout >patch &&
9595
grep "^From " patch >from &&
9696
test_line_count = 3 from

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)