On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:59 AM Owen Taylor wrote:
>
> A lot of discussion about improving the compose process seem to end up
> with a "reality check" - that ideas have already been tried but don't
> work because of requirements a) b) c) d). You can't have the pony, but
> maybe if a lot of effort
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:01 PM Paul Frields wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 9:59 AM Owen Taylor wrote:
> > A lot of discussion about improving the compose process seem to end up
> > with a "reality check" - that ideas have already been tried but don't
> > work because of requirements a) b)
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 9:59 AM Owen Taylor wrote:
> A lot of discussion about improving the compose process seem to end up
> with a "reality check" - that ideas have already been tried but don't
> work because of requirements a) b) c) d). You can't have the pony, but
> maybe if a lot of effort
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:12 AM Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> Define what a compose is? Currently it is a word which covers a
> multitude of different processes and reasons for those processes. We
> can't 'fix' or even 'replace' or parallel them without actually
> knowing why someone duct taped
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 09:59, Owen Taylor wrote:
>
> A lot of discussion about improving the compose process seem to end up
> with a "reality check" - that ideas have already been tried but don't
> work because of requirements a) b) c) d). You can't have the pony, but
> maybe if a lot of effort
A lot of discussion about improving the compose process seem to end up
with a "reality check" - that ideas have already been tried but don't
work because of requirements a) b) c) d). You can't have the pony, but
maybe if a lot of effort is put into it, you can have a faster rocking
horse.
If want
