[tz] Proposed reversions, for moving forward
Alan Barrett
apb at cequrux.com
Fri Aug 8 06:25:32 UTC 2014
On Thu, 07 Aug 2014, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Although we didn't make the changes lightly, we valued
> correctness over stability even when we knew we didn't achieve
> 100% correctness. This has long been common practice in tz
> maintenance.
Yes, valuing correctness over stability is good, even when the new
data is not 100% correct, provided it is more correct than the old
data.
The stability-related complaints have been about cases where the
"more correct than the old data" condition was not perceived to be
satisfied.
I am gradually coming round to the opinion that the new data is
probably more correct than the old data, but that is not clear to
all observers.
--apb (Alan Barrett)
More information about the tz
mailing list