[tz] Astrakhan region got approval to change its time zone
eggert at cs.ucla.edu
Tue Feb 16 22:27:44 UTC 2016
On 02/16/2016 01:38 PM, Tim Parenti wrote:
> That's not a particular obstacle; we already use SAMT for the Udmurt
> Republic as well
Which is equally ridiculous! People in Udmurtia surely don't think of
themselves as being on Samara time. It'd be like a Missourian saying
that Missouri is on Dallas time.
The only reason we use SAMT for Udmurtia is because I wanted to stop
inventing abbreviations and I had to put *something* in there. We should
be taking these inventions out, not enshrining them.
> "+0400" which is preferable to "+04"; the latter are wholly redundant
> with the "%z" and "%:::z" format strings offered by date
It's not redundant at all. Applications like 'date +%z' are already
using portable numeric time zone abbreviations and are unaffected by our
choice of abbreviations, so they are not a problem. The problem occurs
with legacy or poorly-designed new applications, written by programmers
who mistakenly think that the traditional "EST/CST/PST" style is
generally useful. These applications are by definition not using %z or
%:::z, but they still need to output *something*, and that output should
not consist of our bogus inventions.
> I think that's an argument for improving our toolchain accordingly,
> rather than shoving this into the legacy system.
What other improvements do you have in mind?
> perhaps this is a transition which should be planned out more and
> rolled-out together across a wider set of zones once our toolchain can
> support it.
It would be easy to propose a patch to roll out the change to dozens of
zones right away; no tool-change should be needed. My suggestion is more
conservative: use the new-style abbreviations in only a few new zones at
first, to give users a chance to try out the new abbreviations without
changing the behavior of existing settings.
More information about the tz