Anders Melchiorsen <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> The refspec format description was a mix of regexp and BNF, making it
> very difficult to read.
>
> The syntax is now easier to read, though wrong: all parts of the
> refspec are actually optional.
It probably is easier to read, but strictly speaking it is not wrong. The
two parts, <src> and <dst>, _always_ exist, even though either or both of
them can be an empty string.
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-push.txt b/Documentation/git-push.txt
> index 6150b1b..df99c0b 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-push.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/git-push.txt
> @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ OPTIONS
>
> <refspec>...::
> The canonical format of a <refspec> parameter is
> - `+?<src>:<dst>`; that is, an optional plus `{plus}`, followed
> + `[+]<src>:<dst>`; that is, an optional plus `{plus}`, followed
> by the source ref, followed by a colon `:`, followed by
> the destination ref.
I am wondering if it would be clearer and easier to understand if we just
said:
The canonical format of a <refspec> parameter is
an optional plus `{plus}`, followed by the source ref,
followed by a colon `:`, followed by the destination ref.
Find various forms of refspecs in examples section.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
