Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Anders Melchiorsen <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> 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.
The colon is not required, though the format suggests that it is.
>> <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.
I think that is an improvement. Removing the word "canonical" would be
even better, IMHO.
Anders.
--
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
