[tz] draft of change summary for next tz release
apb at cequrux.com
Thu Sep 19 07:46:37 UTC 2013
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, Andy Heninger wrote:
> In an ideal world, from my perspective, changes that affect the
> present or near future time would be kept separate from other
> changes, and have a fast-track release process. And perhaps
> substantial cleanup and historical data updates would be kept
> away from the busy times in March-April, and September-October,
> when all too many countries seem to think it's OK to announce
> that they changed their clocks last weekend.
From my point of view, as the person who handles tzdata updates
for NetBSD, I would prefer to have no controversial changes in any
tzdata update ever.
I suggest that a possible way of achieving the goal of no
controversial changes, would be to have at least two branches
in the upstream repository. I'll name the branches "proposed"
and "approved" for the sake of this message. Changes could
be committed first to the "proposed" branch, then merged to
the "approved" branch after discussion. Releases would be
made from the "approved" branch. I also like the idea of
avoiding potentially disruptive changes during the busy times of
March-April and September-October.
If we had already been using this scheme over the past month
or so, then the Fiji and Liechtenstein changes would be in the
"approved" branch, and would be released soon, while the changes
that some people are unhappy about would be in the "proposed"
branch, and would be discussed further, and possibly reverted or
Of course, any OS vendor can do its own separation of changes into
different categories, and merge only the uncontroversial tzdata
changes into OS release branches. The question has never come
up before, for NetBSD, because we have not been aware of such
controversial changes before.
--apb (Alan Barrett)
More information about the tz