On 6/2/07, Ren? Rebe <rene at exactcode.de> wrote: > Hi, > > On 02.06.2007, at 20:59, ?tienne Bersac wrote: > > > So what is the conclusion of the thread ? > > don't now. Response stopped. > > For me it means I'll have a private patch, probably inside the T2 SDE: > > http://www.t2-project.org/ > > I can not and will not spend 4 years of recoding SANE just for 2 new > (missing) frame types. > > We need to get free software stable, solid and feature complete - not > ever changing. > > I do not see any reason to drastically redo SANE just some people > want too, and neither the free coding slaves to do that. There are not > many reasons why the current SANE standard should be abondone. > > As far as I can see gradually enhancing it is way more doable and > reasonable and also matches the available developer resources. >
i have spent some time looking at scanimage.c. i think the modifications required to support the new frame types will be somewhat more extensive than i had hoped, but it can be done. however, oliver's objections to API instability have resonated with me, such that i am hesitant to commit this to sane cvs without a little more discussion. yes, it could remain a private patch, but i would like our work to reach the widest audience possible. i wonder if the best solution is a 'middle road' of starting iterative development of sane2 based on current sane1. I know folks are hesitant to begin without the draft spec completed, so maybe this idea is also a non-starter. allan -- "The truth is an offense, but not a sin"
