On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:58:54PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:52:19PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote: > > > >> >> >> > +# Note: These tests depend on the hard-coded value of 5 as "too deep". We start > >> >> >> > +# the depth at 0 and count links, not repositories, so in a chain like: > >> >> >> > +# > >> >> >> > +# A -> B -> C -> D -> E -> F -> G -> H > >> >> >> > +# 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 > >> >> >> > +# > >> [...] > >> > No, we count links, not repositories. So the "A->B" link is "0", "B->C" > >> > is "1", and so on. > >> > >> If you need to re-roll for some other reason I would add some spaces > >> around the numbers so they line up better with the links so that this > >> becomes more clear. > > > > Hmm. Now I am puzzled, because I _did_ line up them specifically to make > > this clear. I put the numbers under the ">" of the arrow. Did I screw up > > the spacing somehow so that isn't how they look to you? Or are you just > > saying you would prefer them under the "-" of the arrow? > > > > -Peff > > Input from a self-claimed design expert for ASCII art. ;) > What about this? > > # A -0-> B -1-> C -2-> ... > > (Double space between letter and arrow, number included in the arrow) I actually find that quite confusing, as it looks like "-1", "-2", etc. This has got to be my favorite bikeshed discussion of all time, though. :) -Peff