Hi,
I think that the points raised in the discussion have been answered.
Since the call for discussion, I've made a change in the RFC and proposed
implementation so that the GDALRasterIOExtraArg* psExtraArg argument of
RasterIO() remains optional for out-of-tree C++ code, but compulsory for in-
+1 Frank
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Even Rouault
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think that the points raised in the discussion have been answered.
>
> Since the call for discussion, I've made a change in the RFC and proposed
> implementation so that the GDALRasterIOExtraArg* psExtraArg argument of
>
Even Rouault spatialys.com> writes:
> Motion : I move to adopt RFC 51: RasterIO() improvements : resampling and
> progress callback
>
> http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc51_rasterio_resampling_progress
>
> Starting with my +1
+1
-Jukka Rahkonen-
_
> On Dec 1, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
>
> Even Rouault spatialys.com> writes:
>
>
>> Motion : I move to adopt RFC 51: RasterIO() improvements : resampling and
>> progress callback
>>
>> http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc51_rasterio_resampling_progress
>>
>> Starting with my
On 14-12-02 10:16 AM, Howard Butler wrote:
On Dec 1, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
Even Rouault spatialys.com> writes:
Motion : I move to adopt RFC 51: RasterIO() improvements : resampling and
progress callback
http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc51_rasterio_resampling_progress
+1
Tamas
2014-12-01 19:48 GMT+01:00 Even Rouault :
> Hi,
>
> I think that the points raised in the discussion have been answered.
>
> Since the call for discussion, I've made a change in the RFC and proposed
> implementation so that the GDALRasterIOExtraArg* psExtraArg argument of
> RasterIO()
> Motion : I move to adopt RFC 51: RasterIO() improvements : resampling and
> progress callback
>
> http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc51_rasterio_resampling_progress
>
> Starting with my +1
I declare this motion passed with support from FrankW, JukkaR, HowardB,
DanielM, TamasS and myself. I
w
