Undo executive order 14172 #11844
Undo executive order 14172 #11844
Conversation
rouault
force-pushed
the
fuck_trump
branch
3 times, most recently
from
5806779 to
c0b48e5
Compare
done. They were indeed needed. Uncensoring tend to be more complicated than I anticipated, thanks to the "big data" / Arrow code path. I knew I was going to regret adding this stuff |
|
+1 |
| { | ||
| if (pszValueTransferred && | ||
| (pszValueTransferred[0] == 'g' || pszValueTransferred[0] == 'G') && | ||
| EQUAL(pszValueTransferred, "Gulf of America")) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This would need some localization too, if it's going to really be used, some external mapping table...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Scaling this censoring/uncensoring mechanism to fix all bullshit on Earth without impacting too much performance could be really challenging. I'd suggest every country to have their GDAL national fork. Here this is done in the main repo in recognition that most of our sponsors are US based and embracing stupidity like dogs following their master.
|
I approve this message |
|
Just checking I understand this. If a user hypothetically has data that has fields |
yes |
|
Sorry, but I think this goes beyond what is reasonable. It is improper interference with user data. What if you're a historian making a map of Alaska with Denali labelled as it was popularly known at that particular moment in history, or (as in my previous example) merely recording alternative geographic names? What about attempting to OGR-translate some data with user-submitted text strings that would be inappropriate to change? I realise these are niche cases and certainly possible for an end user to work around if necessary, but I'm happy to go on record as humbly suggesting that this sort of interfering with user data sets a poor precedent. |
yes, I totally agree this change goes beyond what is normally acceptable for a software that should be neutral. That said, the project shouldn't be hostage of my somewhat vain attempt at countering foolishness... If someone wants to revert that (or implement something more subtle to be compatible of your scenario) and find someone to merge it, then that's fine... |
|
I would suggest to keep the change for 4 years and consider it again then. Everyone can see that it is a small, a bit childish, targeted expression of opionion from a frustrated individual. It is not meant to be a precedent for a large scale name war. |
|
I've reverted the change (b9526c1). At least git history will keep track of this vain attempt at protesting. |
No description provided.