Le 16/11/2022 à 17:32, Hermann Rodrigues a écrit :
Hi,
I am a bit late for this discussion, but can someone please clarify if
this is a breaking change? Is this keeping the old behavior in place
when reading GDT_Byte or replacing it completely when reading rasters
storing 8-bit pixels?
This doesn't affect GDT_Byte rasters that were really unsigned 8-bit pixels.
For signed 8-bit pixels,
https://gdal.org/development/rfc/rfc87_signed_int8.html#backward-compatibility
should answer your question
Best,
hermann
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hermann Rodrigues
hermann.rodrig...@gmail.com
herm...@csr.ufmg.br
Twitter: @horodrigues | @dinamica_ego
Centro de Sensoriamento Remoto / UFMG
https://csr.ufmg.br | https://dinamicaego.com
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 8:04 AM Even Rouault
<even.roua...@spatialys.com> wrote:
I declare this motion passed with +1 from PSC members KurtS, JukkaR,
MateuszL and me.
Even
Le 14/11/2022 à 13:22, Even Rouault a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I feel the discussion phase has finished. There were a few
questions
> about the existing GDT_Byte unsigned 8-bit integer type, if it
should
> be renamed/aliased/etc, but no obvious conclusion emerged from
this,
> and I'd suggest we keep with the status-quo with GDT_Byte, and
the RFC
> remains on just adding GDT_Int8 for signed 8-bit integer.
>
> Motion:
>
> Adopt RFC 87: Signed int8 data type for raster
> (https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/pull/6634)
>
> Starting with my +1,
>
> Even
>
--
http://www.spatialys.com
My software is free, but my time generally not.
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
--
http://www.spatialys.com
My software is free, but my time generally not.
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
