From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60DF01F5AE for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 17:19:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732266AbgFSRSl (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Jun 2020 13:18:41 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:62377 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725788AbgFSRSk (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Jun 2020 13:18:40 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B747608C0; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 13:18:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=YL6m0SN2mN7nR2isACNfjzKb3vg=; b=fnu8KW xUa/yzoRzv1QUWOi61xR1xzr9bTWxF3HC89g27gkCbjMalVgNRrhe2jD4lIh6ocw Cu374IjIQTIa5H205BIzhFvBKjaTrl8Tl+hM/Bf3HBxo5lDTn/9oUdF+62adqLhM rG4U1CActiOoZLvBs+cgX85gWXgTrwTgXN3XI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=rUfjfX2oCobsS4iYwNBZp2RLrUA/7pLq Qf4WDc3vaI1IXpeQII0ELryRCKsPswh1a7EjcmWib8Bm3S0DH6VIi67qk8iw50vH 1h1khkkaJpX0dcYBuMuQSewtq0ZwaVqKIJ85JBsBhQsbgQkmXCuflIpITmEKHhV8 d1IWWStPjgc= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 123BA608BF; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 13:18:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.196.173.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 973EF608BE; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 13:18:36 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, msuchanek@suse.de, Till Maas Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tests: do not use "slave branch" nomenclature References: <20200619093210.31289-1-pbonzini@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 10:18:36 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20200619093210.31289-1-pbonzini@redhat.com> (Paolo Bonzini's message of "Fri, 19 Jun 2020 11:32:10 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: E91D16D0-B250-11EA-A6DF-C28CBED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Paolo Bonzini writes: > 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. :) Somebody mentioned "claims" was too strong, but I think the smiley strikes a good balance there. > 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. Exactly. As somebody else said, we often call such a branch "side" in the tests, with the (hopefully widely-held) assumption that any development, either new feature or bugfix, would be done on a side branch and then merged to the integration branch. What the test tries to do applies equally to the developer workflow to use a side branch to work on a non feature (like bugfixes), too, but what is written in this patch is good enough, I would say. Thank you to all for commenting. Will queue. > > Reported-by: Till Maas > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini > --- > 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