Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
Pull external codes automatically including withdrawn (historic) codes #172
This is an update to #51, with a bunch of improvements:
referenced this pull request
Oct 2, 2017
referenced this pull request
Oct 13, 2017
This was referenced
Apr 11, 2018
Following the recent discussions on Discuss, this PR looks like a good way to reduce a lot of the burden on the IATI tech team in terms of keeping codelists up to date (which I think should be one of the highest priorities for the IATI Standard). Is there any plan to proceed or at least review it?
What is the reason for the delay here -- does the tech team not think that these codelists should be kept up to date? If that's the case, it would probably be sensible to start adding disclaimers across the IATIStandard.org site to make users aware that a lot of content is deliberately out of date, and that users should refer to original sources for accurate codelists. (I think it would be far preferable to have up to date and versioned codelists maintained by IATI, it would be much more convenient and useful to retain a record of withdrawn codes.)
Just leaving this PR in limbo seems like a waste to me, and is a shame given that @andylolz has done so much work for free here (and elsewhere). This issue is also over 3 years old now, if you count its predecessor.
How can we move this forward?
Could I point you to Github's Code of Conduct - https://help.github.com/articles/github-community-forum-code-of-conduct/
Sorry @bill-anderson - I could have been more clear. I mean to write that “a lot of codelists are
I vaguely recall some discussion previously about whether IATI should be mirroring third-party codelists at all, and also that the DAC should publish their own (though that still doesn't appear to have happened) so I wondered whether the lack of action on this PR reflected a deliberate policy decision?
This pull request turned one year old yesterday
@bill-anderson is there a way to move forward with this?
The code in this pull request is of a quality consistent with the rest of the repo. However, it doesn’t do anything to improve the overall code quality of the repo. I could refactor it so that it does, but it would be good to get a sense of whether that would make it more likely to be merged.
The last we heard on this was from Dale back in April ’17:
Is there an update since then? Tagging @PetyaKangalova too.
3 times, most recently
Sep 10, 2018
From @bill-anderson’s comments elsewhere, it sounds like the intended solution for DAC codelists is to rely on the XML rather than the XLS. In which case, much of this pull request is no longer valid.
I think lots of this might still be useful for country / currency etc, in case someone rediscovers this later and it can be of some use.