Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 14:47:23 -0300 From: Guilherme Bernardes Rodrigues <oguilherme@gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAAeks0GjPeCa0-RRPTWvZFz03-5fLf8Vo52enH7ivfXLdhAHrg@mail.gmail.com> | About the change in Bahia, Brazil [...] | The change can still occur, but it is better to wait for a | confirmation of something oficial not news about a statement. Definitely, consider that part of the update on hold for now - which could also mean that the update could be deferred for a while, since this was the driving force for the urgency - but (assuming I did not mess up my understanding of the change) we currently have incorrect data published for Asia/Hebron - the change (both actual, and in the database) is past now, so no current timestamps are being affected, but we should have the correct data out as soon as possible, so I still propose to issue an update on Monday. With that in mind, I'd still appreciate people verifying the proposed changes as best you're able (I can test that the syntax in the tzdata file is correct, and generates the transitions as I intended - but I cannot verify (in most cases) that the change proposed actually matches reality for the region. Second, I'd also appreciate assistance with getting the correct acknowledgments for the sources of the changes, and their paths leading to incorporation in the tz data files - 24 hours ago I had no plan to be doing this, and so was not really paying that much attention to the various messages about actual, planned, and possible updates - yesterday (my yesterday) I just scanned my copy of the list messages and tried to dig out all of the current updates I could find, but I was never sure I actually traced the original, or most authoritative, messages, and so in the data file updates I included none of the commentary that Arthur generally added providing source information. No slites intended, just insufficient time to make sure I had the correct data - so please don't be shy about telling me that it was you who discovered the change, and/or telling me how you'd like to be noted in the database comments. Third, it has been requested that I start the process (that the draft RFC anticipates) of providing some authentication for the distributed .tar.gz file (eventually files once a code update is required) and as long as that turns out to be no harder than I have been informed, I'm going to try it... I'll be using my own PGP key (that you can verify from the normal PGP key servers), most likely using gpg & the RSA key to do the signing (but if anyone says that pgp2 or pgp5 is superior, or that I should use the DSA key, I'll listen). Note that (certainly this first time) this is an experiment only, and you should not reject the data file because you cannot verify the signature (if that happens, it is far more likely that I messed up somehow than that the data file has been compormised!) Lastly, with regard to this last part of Guilherme's message ... | Sorry my poor english, No, no apology accepted, firstly because it wasn't needed, there was nothing poor at all about your English, and second, because even if there had been, there is absolutely no need to apologise for it - can you imagine what a message would be like if I attempted to make it in Portuguese? We (all) appreciate the efforts that everyone makes to communicate with us, and do do that (mostly) in English, and we need all of that input. It is the data we need mostly, please, no-one defer or avoid sending messages to the list because you aren't sure of your English ability. If needed, send in your own language, someone else will probably be able to translate, and in any case, much of the content of substance will usually be possible to extract (especially if you write dates using numbers...) Or, attempt English, no-one will complain about, or even comment on, its quality - that's not why we are here. kre