Author here. I originally thought the issue was that an 'imported' scope imports are not considered anymore.
As Walter explained in this issue and in https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15966 this behaviour changed to prevent hijacking and is intended.
So the only issue left with 15925 was that `-transition=checkimport` did not warn about it, which Martin fixed. But since the issue was not renamed / repurposed, it led to a confusing changelog.

Raised a P.R. : https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/1404 and renamed the issue, thanks for reporting.



2016-06-30 9:34 GMT+02:00 qznc via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com>:
On Thursday, 30 June 2016 at 05:42:36 UTC, captaindet wrote:
the changelog to 2.071.1 lists 15925 as a fixed regression, and
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15925
lists it as "RESOLVED FIXED"

however, the issue as originally submitted still exists in 2.071.1.
so what is going on?

for me as a non-core dev it is difficult to get the gist of the discussion on the issue tracker... BUT if it was decided that 15925 is INVALID or WONTFIX it must not be marked as RESOLVED FIXED and be featured as a fixed regression.

i thought i understood the enforced import rules. but if 15925 is indeed invalid, it looks like there had been also changes to the way mixin statements (and maybe even mixin expressions?) work. is this explained anywhere?

 There is a commit [0] with a slightly different test case, where the mixin is in the same module. A second testcase which directly mirrors the issue was reverted [1]. This suggests it is INVALID.

I agree that the resolution of the issue is not sufficiently explained.

[0] https://github.com/dlang/dmd/commit/ba178e607c33e121142ec15c5064d953fd87a191
[1] https://github.com/dlang/dmd/commit/f0f38381ed27fd8a4d2e36d13623698970cff7bd