Ok, no problem. At the moment, the documentation doesn't match the behaviour of the code. I'm thinking of whipping up a patch to the documentation explaining the issue, and mentioning the one line work around if you want the old behaviour. Would that be an acceptable patch?
Sean On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Adam Murdoch <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 23/11/2010, at 7:35 PM, Sean Reilly wrote: > > Hi All, > > I submitted a fix for the jira issue > GRADLE-1205<http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GRADLE-1205>a few days ago, and > haven't received any responses yet. Does anyone have any > feedback? Is this the way people prefer to receive patches? > > > Sorry for not replying sooner. This is exactly how we like to receive > patches. > > I'm not 100% keen on applying this patch, however. In Gradle 0.8, the > compile configuration was non-transitive. In Gradle 0.9, we switched it to > transitive. As I mentioned in another email, neither is really quite right. > So, I'd rather not switch the compile configuration back to non-transitive. > I'd much rather fix the problem properly. At this stage, the plan is to fix > the problem soon after Gradle 0.9 is out, maybe in the first or second > milestone after 0.9. > > > -- > Adam Murdoch > Gradle Developer > http://www.gradle.org > CTO, Gradle Inc. - Gradle Training, Support, Consulting > http://www.gradle.biz > >
