On 6/2/07, Ren? Rebe <rene at exactcode.de> wrote: > Hi, > > On 02.06.2007, at 22:05, m. allan noah wrote: > > > 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. > > 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"
