Aug. 8, 2014
6:25 a.m.
On Thu, 07 Aug 2014, Paul Eggert wrote:
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.
Yes, valuing correctness over stability is good, even when the new data is not 100% correct, provided it is more correct than the old data. The stability-related complaints have been about cases where the "more correct than the old data" condition was not perceived to be satisfied. I am gradually coming round to the opinion that the new data is probably more correct than the old data, but that is not clear to all observers. --apb (Alan Barrett)