Daniel, > No comment on the actual change which sounds fine to me. > > However, could we add a "Version: ..." field to the header of RFCs to > make it easier to track down the version to which a RFC applies? I saw > that you indicate the version in the status field after a RFC has been > implemented, but while it's in draft and during the discussion phase > there is no indication of the target version.
Sure, added > > In this specific case, I presume it is a V2.0 change since it breaks > API/ABI compatibility, right? Same comment for the Date/Time RFC that > was discussed earlier this week. Yes, v2.0 target Even > > Thanks > > Daniel > > On 2015-04-07 3:33 PM, Even Rouault wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This is a call for discussion on "64-bit bucket counts for histograms" > > (last one for today ;-) and hopefully a no-brainer) > > > > https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc57_histogram_64bit_count > > > > Summary : > > > > This RFC modifies the GDALRasterBand GetHistogram(), > > GetDefaultHistogram() and SetDefaultHistogram() methods to accept arrays > > of 64-bit integer instead of the current arrays of 32-bit integer for > > bucket counts. This will fix issues when operating on large rasters that > > have more than 2 billion pixels. > > > > Even -- Spatialys - Geospatial professional services http://www.spatialys.com _______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
