On Dec 19, 2007 11:11 AM, Alessandro Zummo <azummo-lists at towertech.it> wrote: > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:36:09 -0500 > "m. allan noah" <kitno455 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > if a branch is created, to support new data formats, could it be > > > > done to > > > > handle them the way (or a subset of) SANE2 is planned to do it? So that > > > > we > > > > move incrementally toward SANE2. > > > > > > I don't think so, because that would mean you really have to implement > > > SANE2. The purpose of the SANE 1.1 branch is to keep compatibility with > > > 1.0 . > > > > agreed- it seems that we have had so much trouble getting started on > > sane2 because it is so large and may have incompatibilites with sane1, > > making it hard to test. my idea was to move forward in smaller steps, > > trying to keep compatibility, so that old backends require no > > modifications. > > exactly. who can take care to setup the cvs for the 1.1 branch? >
how does this sound: sane 1.0.19- release in Feb, last of the standard 1.0 versions, remove SANE_FRAME_JPEG. sane 1.1.0- release in May?, first of the standard 1.1 versions, no new function calls, only more well-known options and frame types, old backends need no changes, other than required well-known options. sane 2.0.0- first of standard 2.0 versions, new function calls, etc. given the backwards compatibility of standard 1.1, i dont think there is a need for sane 1.0.20. allan -- "The truth is an offense, but not a sin"
