Hi all, Buried in a recent thread are some comments in support of requiring a GDAL RFC for new format drivers. On the surface it seems one way to keep GDAL's mass and surface area from growing without bounds. It's also been pointed out that at least one of GDAL's formats was never intended for use. Requiring RFCs might also help prevent proliferation of needlessly different web API clients and JSON formats. Or it might not, I'd love to read what others have to say about this.
Requiring an RFC could hurt developers, though, since pay for format driver development (and other new features) is what's largely been subsidizing bug fixes and general maintenance of the project. I'm sure that others of you can think of consequences and side effects that I haven't. I suppose we should probably have an RFC about RFCs if this idea isn't immediately shot down. Kurt Schwehr has made a template for what a driver RFC might look like and I suggest we discuss that as well. -- Sean Gillies
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev