I'm not sure what to make of this comment. Are you saying that this error was incorrectly signaled in response to a different error condition? Or because somehow the change-class caused there to be two components with the same name? If so, is that a different bug?
I'm not sure what to make of this comment. Are you saying that this error was incorrectly signaled in response to a different error condition? Or because somehow the change-class caused there to be two components with the same name? If so, is that a different bug?