On 24/07/2007, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > IIRC, it switched to the other dependency because the alternate scope > is going to modify the subtree under that dependency. Does that make > sense?
Blast from the past.. sorry Brett, I don't see what your saying here. There's no subtree under the conflicting dependency (g:c:t:1) to be modified. And why would the fired events differ from the resolution tree as described above? Cheers, Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
