"m. allan noah" <kitno455 at gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Julien BLACHE <jb at jblache.org> wrote:
>> "m. allan noah" <kitno455 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sanity is not the problem. The extreme need to make a release, coupled
>>> with limited developer resources is the problem. Lets bump the version
>>> everywhere to 2.
>>
>> Sanity and consistency of the API and its behaviour is the problem.
>
> we are making only modest changes to the API. It's behaviour is MORE
> consistent with the current code than with your suggestion.
>
>> And I just can't believe you're pushing a release because "we need to
>> release" and breaking things along the way.
>
> This is YOUR opinion. I think adding additional statuses to
> SANE_Status is perfect, and protecting them with version bump follows
> the standard to the letter.
Julien is not the only one with that opinion. I for one don't care
for a release that was pushed out of the door for the benefit of a
mere three backends that want/need the additions and in the mean time
break things along the way for all frontends and external backends.
- what other reasons are there to release in such a rush?
- how do you support mixed (API/so)version installations?
- will a version 2 dll backend still load version 1 backends?
- can version 2 frontends use version 1 backends?
- will version 1 frontends do the right thing with all version 2
backends?
- can everyone find the right match of versions?
The mixed version installations is something that distribution will
care about. A lot. Any distribution people hanging around that want
to chime in here?
Hope this helps,
--
Olaf Meeuwissen, LPIC-2 FLOSS Engineer -- AVASYS Corporation
FSF Associate Member #1962 Help support software freedom
http://www.fsf.org/jf?referrer=1962
