[gdal-dev] Requiring RFCs for new format drivers

[Sean Gillies]

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/attachments/20210201/80aef4ba/attachment.html>