On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 20:15:16 +0200, Christian Schulte
wrote:
Am 16.07.2016 um 15:40 schrieb Robert Scholte:
I understand that every element has an original scope, but I wonder if
it
is useful in the tree. I'd say based on the scope(s) you get a certain
tree, where scopes don't matter anymo
Am 16.07.2016 um 15:40 schrieb Robert Scholte:
I understand that every element has an original scope, but I wonder if it
is useful in the tree. I'd say based on the scope(s) you get a certain
tree, where scopes don't matter anymore.
This would probably also solve the test-scoped issue in the othe
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 20:08:22 +0200, Christian Schulte
wrote:
Am 07/15/16 um 19:52 schrieb Robert Scholte:
I think you're right. The main issue here is c:1 is the first closest
one,
but since the c:2 has compile scope, so should c:1. However, that
doesn't
change the scope for transitive d
Am 07/15/16 um 19:52 schrieb Robert Scholte:
> I think you're right. The main issue here is c:1 is the first closest one,
> but since the c:2 has compile scope, so should c:1. However, that doesn't
> change the scope for transitive dependencies of c:1
>
> A bit off-topic: Where is this scope o
scopes we probably need to do something with scope-order too.
Robert
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 17:56:01 +0200, Christian Schulte
wrote:
Hi,
I have a question regarding the description of MNG-4800. Why should the
scope of x be compile? The part "instead of ... x:compile". Is this
really corr
Hi,
I have a question regarding the description of MNG-4800. Why should the
scope of x be compile? The part "instead of ... x:compile". Is this
really correct? I see no reason why the scope of x should be updated to
compile. It should be kept runtime because it is a runtime dependen
