[tz] Proposed reversions, for moving forward

Stephen Colebourne scolebourne at joda.org
Tue Aug 5 15:40:13 UTC 2014

On 5 August 2014 16:10, Paul Eggert <eggert at cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
> Yes, and the recent contretemps started mainly because of a batch that was
> too large for some in the audience.  The latest proposal is a small fraction
> of the original proposal.  I would like to continue to remove data lacking a
> reliable source -- a process that's been going on for some time -- but I
> guess it'll be one step at a time.

Er no. The argument has mostly been about the principles, not the size
of the change. The size prevented both decent review and correct
rollback, but both of those are as much about not using a sensible
source code management strategy as the data itself.

Simply ploughing on with the changes, just in smaller batches, does
not actually make the objectors happy, it merely increases the noise
and effort we all have to make. The point remains that replacing bogus
data with other bogus data is nothing other than dumb from the
perspective of many of those who ultimately consume the data. zic is
but one consumer these day.


More information about the tz mailing list