[gdal-dev] Motion: Approve RFC 24 - GDAL Progressive Data Support

[Tamas Szekeres]

+1


BTW: I couldn't review the recent implementation in detail, however I would
suggest using the functions defined recently in cpl_atomic_ops.cpp to access
the volatile variables by multiple threads to prevent from the possible
issues pointed out in:
http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/ticket/2648

Best regards,

Tamas



2010/3/16 Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam at pobox.com>

> Folks,
>
> Motion: To approve RFC 24 - GDAL Progressive Data Support.
>
>  http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc24_progressive_data_support
>
> --
>
> I've incorporated adjustments based on the feedback in the last few
> days, and now I'd like to move to formally adopt RFC 24.
>
> Best regards,
> --
>
> ---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
> I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam,
> warmerdam at pobox.com
> light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam<http://pobox.com/%7Ewarmerdam>
> and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Programmer for Rent
>
> _______________________________________________
> gdal-dev mailing list
> gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/attachments/20100316/e44e47dd/attachment.html