Re: [PATCH 1/7] Documentation: do not use regexp in refspec descriptions

> Anders Melchiorsen <mail@cup.kalibalik.dk> 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.

>>  <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.