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?
Best, hermann ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hermann Rodrigues [email protected] [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev >
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
