path: root/t/
diff options
authorPaolo Bonzini <>2020-06-19 09:32:10 (GMT)
committerJunio C Hamano <>2020-06-19 17:26:34 (GMT)
commit08dc26061f3ff9ee79e6cfda88f0c825b8730e54 (patch)
treebcd70baeab03c5ae747abe89e66a68e747120145 /t/
parentaf6b65d45ef179ed52087e80cb089f6b2349f4ec (diff)
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 <> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <>
Diffstat (limited to 't/')
1 files changed, 4 insertions, 4 deletions
diff --git a/t/ b/t/
index b653dd7..270fde2 100755
--- a/t/
+++ b/t/
@@ -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