On Friday 28 March 2008, Julien BLACHE wrote: > > I'm rather inclined to the "3" goal, since I feel there are > > quite a few things to do to improve SANE. Having a new standard > > doesn't mean SANE 1 stops to exist. Both can coexist. > Do you really think there is the needed manpower to co-maintain 2 > versions of SANE?
To expand slightly on a previously made point: supposing a new (non-backward-compatible) standard were to be agreed upon then two glue/compatibility adaptors could be written: 1. connect SANE1 frontends to SANEX backends 2. connect SANEX-only frontends to SANE1 backends This handles the cases of binary/abandoned front and back ends. I suspect that hard bit will deciding all-new standard... My 2p's worth... cheers, Jon -- ====================== Jon Chambers ===================== http://www.jon.demon.co.uk, 020 8575 7097, 07931 961669 =========================================================
