Garrett D'Amore wrote: > *provided* that we all understand that this doesn't set a precedent > where someone could use this case's binding to bring along the > dependency with a stricter binding requirement
I believe that such a presumption is at the heart of the whole
binding/dependency scheme. If you have Patch, and depend on me,
but I only have Minor, then QED - you can only *do* Minor.
Duh! :-)
-John
