[PATCH] tests: do not use "slave branch" nomenclature

[PATCH] tests: do not use "slave branch" nomenclature

[Paolo Bonzini]

From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>

Git does not have slave branches and has never had.  Independent
of any future change to the naming of branches, remove the sole
appearance of the term.

Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
---
 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..3e5b921b0f 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 branch master &&
 	echo "Another line" >>file &&
 	test_tick &&
-	git commit -am "Slave change #1" &&
+	git commit -am "Branch change #1" &&
 	echo "Yet another line" >>file &&
 	test_tick &&
-	git commit -am "Slave change #2" &&
+	git commit -am "Branch change #2" &&
 	git checkout -b merger master &&
 	test_tick &&
-	git merge --no-ff slave &&
+	git merge --no-ff branch &&
 	git format-patch -3 --stdout >patch &&
 	grep "^From " patch >from &&
 	test_line_count = 3 from
-- 
2.25.4

Re: [PATCH] tests: do not use "slave branch" nomenclature

[Jeff King]

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 06:38:43PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:

> From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> 
> Git does not have slave branches and has never had.  Independent
> of any future change to the naming of branches, remove the sole
> appearance of the term.

I think this is a sensible change, though note that something simpler
was proposed recently:

  https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200610165441.iktvzuwz44sbytfg@chatter.i7.local/

and the review suggested using a name that is even more meaningful to
the test case (so we not just remove the unwanted names, but make the
test easier to follow).

-Peff

Re: [PATCH] tests: do not use "slave branch" nomenclature

[Junio C Hamano]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 06:38:43PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>> From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
>> 
>> Git does not have slave branches and has never had.  Independent
>> of any future change to the naming of branches, remove the sole
>> appearance of the term.
>
> I think this is a sensible change, though note that something simpler
> was proposed recently:
>
>   https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200610165441.iktvzuwz44sbytfg@chatter.i7.local/
>
> and the review suggested using a name that is even more meaningful to
> the test case (so we not just remove the unwanted names, but make the
> test easier to follow).

Thanks for spotting that both versions share the same issue.  We'd
just need a single one that is fixed up ;-).

Re: [PATCH] tests: do not use "slave branch" nomenclature

[Michal Suchánek]

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:08:01AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 06:38:43PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >
> >> From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> >> 
> >> Git does not have slave branches and has never had.  Independent
> >> of any future change to the naming of branches, remove the sole
> >> appearance of the term.
> >
> > I think this is a sensible change, though note that something simpler
> > was proposed recently:
> >
> >   https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200610165441.iktvzuwz44sbytfg@chatter.i7.local/
> >
> > and the review suggested using a name that is even more meaningful to
> > the test case (so we not just remove the unwanted names, but make the
> > test easier to follow).
> 
> Thanks for spotting that both versions share the same issue.  We'd
> just need a single one that is fixed up ;-).
How about s/slave/feature/

This is about simulating some development happening on the new branch so
this name looks appropriate.

Thanks

Michal

Re: [PATCH] tests: do not use "slave branch" nomenclature

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 19/06/20 11:20, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:08:01AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 06:38:43PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
>>>>
>>>> Git does not have slave branches and has never had.  Independent
>>>> of any future change to the naming of branches, remove the sole
>>>> appearance of the term.
>>>
>>> I think this is a sensible change, though note that something simpler
>>> was proposed recently:
>>>
>>>   https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200610165441.iktvzuwz44sbytfg@chatter.i7.local/
>>>
>>> and the review suggested using a name that is even more meaningful to
>>> the test case (so we not just remove the unwanted names, but make the
>>> test easier to follow).
>>
>> Thanks for spotting that both versions share the same issue.  We'd
>> just need a single one that is fixed up ;-).
> How about s/slave/feature/
> 
> This is about simulating some development happening on the new branch so
> this name looks appropriate.

Indeed I was going to send v2 with topic or feature.  Thanks,

Paolo