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 <tmaas@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>