[tz] redundant Rule in proposal for Macao

[Paul Eggert]

Michael H Deckers via tz wrote:

>     The later switch has no effect, and can easily be omitted:
>        +Rule   Macau   1949    1950    -       Apr     Sat>=1 23:00s 1:00    D

Thanks for spotting that; patch attached.

> 
>     concise notation could be
>     construed as a reason for retaining the redundancy.
> 
>     Do we have a guideline for such cases?

There's no explicit guideline that tzdb should be as simple as possible; I'm 
hoping this is so obvious that it doesn't need to be written down (as that would 
make tzdb more complicated :-). That being said, it might help to say that we 
sometimes don't know the exact historical rules and in these cases any Rule and 
Zone lines will do. Second patch attached.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-asia-Macau-Omit-redundant-transition.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/attachments/20180626/ea9a1def/0001-asia-Macau-Omit-redundant-transition.patch>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0002-theory.html-Discuss-what-Rules-represent.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1086 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/attachments/20180626/ea9a1def/0002-theory.html-Discuss-what-Rules-represent.patch>