[tz] Proposed reversions, for moving forward

Alan Barrett apb at cequrux.com
Fri Aug 8 06:25:32 UTC 2014

On Thu, 07 Aug 2014, Paul Eggert wrote:
> 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.

Yes, valuing correctness over stability is good, even when the new 
data is not 100% correct, provided it is more correct than the old 

The stability-related complaints have been about cases where the 
"more correct than the old data" condition was not perceived to be 

I am gradually coming round to the opinion that the new data is 
probably more correct than the old data, but that is not clear to 
all observers.

--apb (Alan Barrett)

More information about the tz mailing list