Here are 2 personal opinions On Friday 06 June 2003 7:18 pm, Henning Meier-Geinitz wrote:> > There has been some criticism of the current handling of the :status > keywords in the .desc files. These filse are used to create our lists > of scanners and the output of the scanner search engine. > > We currently have two sorts of status indicators: > > 1) The backend status: alpha, beta or stable > 2) The model status: unsupported, untested, alpha, beta or stable > > > Concerning the backends status I think we don't really have the need > to talk about stability. Crashing backends are rather seldom. So I'm > not sure if we need this overall status at all anymore. If we want to > keep it, what about a measurement on how active the backend is > maintained, e.g.: > > unmaintained: There is no maintainer. Only security and other > grave bugs will be fixed > supported: There is a maintainer for the backend. Bugs will be fixed and > patches will be accepted. > development: The backend is under active development. New features > and/or new models may be added.
Many backends support several scanners, and may be "supported" for most and under "development" for some. Is unmaintained and supported enough without the 3rd option? > Model status: As proposed by others, I'd like to have a measurement on > how good a scanner works compared to its capabilities. E.g.: > > unsupported: This device is not working at all. > untested: The device may work, but nobody has tested it yet. > minimal: The device is detected and does something but is not > really usable. E.g. It scans in one mode but colors > are off. > basic: The device is usable, but some modes are not supported > or quality is not perfect yet. > good: Usable for day-to-day work. Some unusual modes or > seldomly-used features aren't supported. > perfect: Everything the scanner can do is supported. > I do not like the word "perfect" it implies totally bug free and not improvable, would "complete" be more suitable. > > Here is an example on how the HTML lists could look like: > > http://www.meier-geinitz.de/sane/tmp/sane-mfgs.html#MUSTEK > > Only the model status is implemented. And only Mustek SCSi scanners > have set the values. > > Comments? > > Bye, > Henning > _______________________________________________ > Sane-devel mailing list > sane-de...@www.mostang.com > http://www.mostang.com/mailman/listinfo/sane-devel
