On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 3:39 PM Moritz Lennert <mlenn...@club.worldonline.be> wrote: > > Markus, > > Could you explain this ? Does this mean that the memory parameter in > r.in.gdal is now automagic ? Or why doesn't it make sens to let the user > define in r.import the memory size ?
Markus N and me were discussing this together: r73360 removes the 2047 MB limit in r.import, nothing else. It is now possible in r.import to define memory larger than 2047 MB. r.in.gdal has this limit only for GDAL 1.8 and earlier and does the checks (r.in.gdal will take care of the memory answer). Markus M > > Moritz > > On 17/09/18 15:30, svn_gr...@osgeo.org wrote: > > Author: neteler > > Date: 2018-09-17 06:30:25 -0700 (Mon, 17 Sep 2018) > > New Revision: 73360 > > > > Modified: > > grass/branches/releasebranch_7_6/scripts/r.import/r.import.py > > Log: > > r.import: remove hardcoded memory limit (r.in.gdal will take care) > > > > Modified: grass/branches/releasebranch_7_6/scripts/r.import/r.import.py > > =================================================================== > > --- grass/branches/releasebranch_7_6/scripts/r.import/r.import.py 2018-09-17 13:29:35 UTC (rev 73359) > > +++ grass/branches/releasebranch_7_6/scripts/r.import/r.import.py 2018-09-17 13:30:25 UTC (rev 73360) > > @@ -39,7 +39,6 @@ > > #% type: integer > > #% required: no > > #% multiple: no > > -#% options: 0-2047 > > #% label: Maximum memory to be used (in MB) > > #% description: Cache size for raster rows > > #% answer: 300 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > grass-commit mailing list > > grass-com...@lists.osgeo.org > > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-commit > > > > > _______________________________________________ > grass-dev mailing list > grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
_______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
