[postgis-devel] Regarding Raster RFC2 edit (r16452)

Bborie Park dustymugs at gmail.com
Tue Mar 13 09:14:21 PDT 2018


Can do.

-bborie

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:07 AM, Sandro Santilli <strk at kbt.io> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 06:47:50AM -0700, Bborie Park wrote:
> > Apologies for not being more transparent as I changed the RFC. I was
> > writing some unit tests for a separate python package built based
> > upon the
> > WKB RFC and just could not confirm correct behavior. After checking
> > a few
> > spots (including the old prototypes of WKT Raster and GDAL), i
> > confirmed
> > that the enum/index used in the RFC was wrong.
>
> When a specification says something and code does something else, I
> tend to think that the code is bogus, not that the specification is.
> As this is debatable the correct procedure would be to start a
> revision process to come to an agreement about what's wrong and what's
> right.
>
> On IRC I've read something about an unused PT_16BF pixel type, so
> there seem to be more to discuss about ? Could you please formally
> start a thread describing what discrepancy you found and which options
> you see to fix it ?
>
> Filing a blocker ticket targetting cleaning of this situation would
> probably help too.
>
> --strk;
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/attachments/20180313/19a5e5fd/attachment.html>


More information about the postgis-devel mailing list