> If you want to maximize data stability under the constraint of being fair,

You are causing potentially a lot of compatibility issues for people around the globe — in a tremendous (and inexplicable) rush — because of your notion of 'fair'. That notion seems to be shared by few if any other people. Could you explain exactly how people in Africa (for example) are disadvantaged by having pre-1970 data for Oslo and Berlin?

How exactly are their lives made worse?

Mark

On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 4:58 PM Paul Eggert via tz <tz@iana.org> wrote:

On 9/23/21 14:39, Tom Lane via tz wrote:
> There would be a loss
> of data stability for users in the zones that were moved to backzone
> previously. I'm not terribly thrilled about that, but it seems like
> the least amount of damage to the least amount of people

No, quite the reverse is true. More timezones (and more people) would be
affected by adopting backzone, than by what's in the development version
now. For example, the population of Chongqing is about double that of
Norway and Sweden combined. And backzone's Asia/Chongqing stands for a
lot more than just the municipality of Chongqing.

If you want to maximize data stability under the constraint of being
fair, then the current development repository beats all other proposals
I've seen so far.