Re: [tz] redundant Rule in proposal for Macao

Michael H Deckers via tz wrote:

   The later switch has no effect, and can easily be omitted:       +Rule   Macau   1949    1950    -       Apr     Sat>=1 23:00s 1:00    D

Thanks for spotting that; patch attached.

   concise notation could be    construed as a reason for retaining the redundancy.

   Do we have a guideline for such cases?

There's no explicit guideline that tzdb should be as simple as possible; I'm hoping this is so obvious that it doesn't need to be written down (as that would make tzdb more complicated :-). That being said, it might help to say that we sometimes don't know the exact historical rules and in these cases any Rule and Zone lines will do. Second patch attached.