Jan. 2, 2016
8:06 p.m.
On 1 Jan 2016 16:07, Matt Johnson wrote:
While there are indeed areas where this certainly occurred, we should be careful not to introduce that artificially. If there is uncertainty between 0:00 and 0:01, we should assume 0:00 (IMHO). Agreed. I took a look through and there thankfully weren't too many cases like this. In the attached patch 0001, I left the few cases where 00:01 is almost definitely correct, like the StJohns and Moncton rules; but removed the others. Feel free to apply it, or not, if people have strong feelings either way.
The attached patch 0002 just rearranges NEWS items a bit, to be more consistent with future / past-and-future / past. -- Tim Parenti