[tz] Proposed reversions, for moving forward
eggert at cs.ucla.edu
Thu Aug 7 16:40:26 UTC 2014
Derick Rethans wrote:
> I realize it's because acronyms changed *only* here
Yes, and although it was merely a regression test, it helps bring better
perspective to the recent discussion about removing questionable old
data. I've long expected that 2014f's acronym changes will cause the
most disruption to end users, that the Russia changes will be noticeable
but not that painful, and that the removal of questionable old data will
cause no significant problems in practice.
We thought the old acronym entries were not right -- even though we
couldn't *prove* this -- and so we improved the data as best we could.
Although we didn't make the changes lightly, we valued correctness over
stability even when we knew we didn't achieve 100% correctness. This
has long been common practice in tz maintenance.
More information about the tz