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.