[tz] Uruguay out of DST

[Brian Inglis]

On 2015-07-10 13:30, Deborah Goldsmith wrote:
>> “Verified" is not Boolean.
> Of course it isn’t; that’s not what I was trying to say. If you want to substitute “reasonably confident of,” that’s fine. I understand there is a tradeoff between timeliness and confidence.
>> Downstream users of the tz database need to be reasonably prompt in applying new releases anyway.  Governments sometimes decide changes only a few days before they take effect, so if users care about timestamps, OS release schedules simply cannot require three-month delays.  This is true regardless of whether we issue a new Uruguayan-related tz release this week or next week.
> As I’m sure you’re aware, considerations of time zone updates are not the only factor in determining OS release schedules. It’s unfortunately a fact of life that the further in advance an update is available, the more likely it is to be released in a timely fashion.
> I would love to be able to turn a tz release around in a week. That is not currently possible. Based on comments by others on this list, I suspect it’s not possible for them, either.
> I will investigate the option of proceeding based on the git repository, but of course an official release from IANA is much preferred.
>
>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 10:24 AM, Paul Eggert <eggert at CS.UCLA.EDU> wrote:
>>
>> On 07/10/2015 09:15 AM, Deborah Goldsmith wrote:
>>> is there any reason to wait once the data is verified?
>> "Verified" is not Boolean.  Have we verified the upcoming Uruguay change?  Not really, not nearly as much as (say) we verified the most-recent US change -- and even if we had better confirmation, the Uruguayan change is controversial and perhaps they'll change their minds.  Have we verified the upcoming Moldova change?  More than Uruguay, but even there the start date for that change is sheer guesswork on my part.  So it's quite possible that the proposed Moldovan and Uruguayan changes are wrong, at least in part.
>> Also, there's overhead to making a release.  Even when data can be 99.999% verified there is still benefit to having ten releases a year instead of fifty, if ten will do.
>> Downstream users of the tz database need to be reasonably prompt in applying new releases anyway.  Governments sometimes decide changes only a few days before they take effect, so if users care about timestamps, OS release schedules simply cannot require three-month delays.  This is true regardless of whether we issue a new Uruguayan-related tz release this week or next week.

Don't recall seeing anyone post anything official from Uruguay gov on what their intent is.
As they are dropping DST, perhaps they feel that not announcing DST is sufficient.
When should the list or moderator feel comfortable that they are "officially" not going to announce DST?

-- 
Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis