[tz] Getting close to new release: testing, testing, ...

[random832 at fastmail.us]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2013, at 10:13, Zefram wrote:
> It does so because it wasn't obvious, at version 2,
> in what manner future changes to the format would be signalled, nor to
> what extent they'd maintain compatibility.

I don't understand this - it seems to me it was very obvious, precisely
from the extent to which version 2 maintained compatibility with version
1 (including an entire redundant copy of everything; being unwilling to
even do so little as add entries to the existing ttinfo table that are
not used in the period covered by 32-bit timestamps, instead creating a
second ttinfo table.)

It hadn't even occurred to me that any tools would simply reject any
higher version number, since if that were the case there would be no
tools that could actually make use of the backwards-compatible
version-1-format data in a version-2 file.