[gdal-dev] Motion: adopt RFC 87: Signed int8 data type for raster

[Hermann Rodrigues]

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
hermann.rodrigues at gmail.com
hermann at csr.ufmg.br
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 <even.rouault at spatialys.com>
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
> hermann.rodrigues at gmail.com
> hermann at csr.ufmg.br
> 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 <even.rouault at spatialys.com>
> 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
>> gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
>>
> -- http://www.spatialys.com
> My software is free, but my time generally not.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/attachments/20221116/3174004d/attachment-0001.htm>