[sane-devel] Additional frame types in Sane 1

[m. allan noah]

On 6/2/07, René Rebe <rene at exactcode.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 02.06.2007, at 22:05, m. allan noah wrote:
>
> > On 6/2/07, René Rebe <rene at exactcode.de> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 02.06.2007, at 20:59, Étienne 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.
>
> Thing is, Open Source does not work by sitting in a private round
> discussing for years - but by actually coding.

i daresay everyone on this list agrees.

> None of the successive projects starts programming "when some
> draft was done", but the Linux kernel, GNOME, KDE people just
> gradually code what is needed and makes sense.

yes- but perhaps those are not the best examples, as linux has binary
incompatability as a goal :), and the other two are not a suite of
drivers with congruent interfaces like sane. they also have not been
stable for years the way sane has.

> Just gradually evolving "what is needed" and not what
> "someone thinks might be nice in 5 years" is more what
> brought the big projects to where they are today.

agreed, but i bet they bumped the soversion alot more frequently than
sane ever has :)

allan

-- 
"The truth is an offense, but not a sin"