[tz] Large scale changes proposed in 2014f

[Marc Lehmann]

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 09:28:13PM -0700, Russ Allbery <eagle at eyrie.org> wrote:
> > _you think_ it is pointless, but you cannot just ignore the perfectly
> > good points others have made, foremost that of the value of stability
> > itself, quality being equal.
> 
> He isn't ignoring anything.  He just doesn't agree with you, and I suspect
> doesn't think that your arguments are as good as you think they are.

Not agreeing with me is fine (although he wasn't arguing with me at the
time, so how do you know he actually disagrees...), and thinking arguments
are bad or unconvincing is just fine as well.

However, pretending there aren't any points to it when some have been
stated is not "disagreeing" it is simply "ignoring". That is all I pointed
out, and I stand by it.

It's like me claiming there are no points in favour of the change: That
would both be wrong, and would ignore the arguments that have been
made. It also wouldn't add anything to the discussion.

> For what it's worth, I agree with Clive as well.  I don't see any point in
> retaining data that is either known to be wrong or that is highly likely
> to be wrong, and I think retaining it is harmful (if in a fairly minor
> way).

This is a strawmen argument and a false dichotomy, it isn't what is
happening. Instead, such data is replaced by other such data. The choice
is not between bad data and no data as you frame it, it's between
bogus data and bogus data, or rather, bogus timestamps and other bogus
timestamps.

And as has been pointed out, this new data has good chances of being
even more wrong, so you'd argue for replacing bogus data by even more
bogus data. I don't know if it is true, but I bet you don't either. More
research would clearly be needed.

> Some of us are just tired of repeating the same positions that we've
> stated in the past and don't bother to do so every time there's another

If I take your mail as an example then the reason for this is that your
position doesn't seem to even apply to the issue and you should do more
research to show why it would apply, _given the arguments already made_.

Stating a position is absolutely pointless unless there arguments to back
them up. There needs to be evidence or at least convincing arguments to
change data, and this has been consistently lacking (as has been pointed
out as well). Simply stating positions is arguing by assertion, and we all
know how unreasonable that is.

> OMG THE TZ DATABASE IS DESTROYED FOREVAR AND EVAR WHY DO YOU HATE THE
> KITTENZ???!?!?!

That's just childish - we only heard this silly argument from you.

Ridiculing other people or their arguments is also not an argument in
itself. Well, at least not a reasonable one.

What this discussion needs is more reasonable arguments in favour of the
change. So far, there has been a lot of arguing besides the point, and
very few arguments in favour of the change that even apply to the case.

That is, there might have been convincing arguments, but it's unclear
whether they apply - for example, if the new data would indeed be better,
then replacing very bogus data by less bogus data might well make sense,
but I haven't seen anybody argue the new data is better.

The only argument that trivially stands in favour is that it decreases
maintainance burden (there are a few variations). Anything else is usually
conditional on the assertion that the new data is better, or that the
change data doesn't cause disruption etc., with no attempts to even
rationalise these assumptions.

-- 
                The choice of a       Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG
      -----==-     _GNU_              http://www.deliantra.net
      ----==-- _       generation
      ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __      Marc Lehmann
      --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /      schmorp at schmorp.de
      -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\