Hi, So based on that RFC it is a breaking change when reading signed images. I confess that this type of silent behavor change scares me.
Why dont make this an opt-in behavior instead of just breaking application code silently? Otherwise, I would rather have GDT_Byte removed so that application code would not compile against new versions of GDAL. At least that makes migration to new versions less risky. 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 11:38 AM Even Rouault <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > [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 >> > -- 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
