On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 09:28:13PM -0700, Russ Allbery <eagle@eyrie.org> wrote:
_you think_ it is pointless, but you cannot just ignore the perfectly good points others have made, foremost that of the value of stability itself, quality being equal.
He isn't ignoring anything. He just doesn't agree with you, and I suspect doesn't think that your arguments are as good as you think they are.
Not agreeing with me is fine (although he wasn't arguing with me at the time, so how do you know he actually disagrees...), and thinking arguments are bad or unconvincing is just fine as well. However, pretending there aren't any points to it when some have been stated is not "disagreeing" it is simply "ignoring". That is all I pointed out, and I stand by it. It's like me claiming there are no points in favour of the change: That would both be wrong, and would ignore the arguments that have been made. It also wouldn't add anything to the discussion.
For what it's worth, I agree with Clive as well. I don't see any point in retaining data that is either known to be wrong or that is highly likely to be wrong, and I think retaining it is harmful (if in a fairly minor way).
This is a strawmen argument and a false dichotomy, it isn't what is happening. Instead, such data is replaced by other such data. The choice is not between bad data and no data as you frame it, it's between bogus data and bogus data, or rather, bogus timestamps and other bogus timestamps. And as has been pointed out, this new data has good chances of being even more wrong, so you'd argue for replacing bogus data by even more bogus data. I don't know if it is true, but I bet you don't either. More research would clearly be needed.
Some of us are just tired of repeating the same positions that we've stated in the past and don't bother to do so every time there's another
If I take your mail as an example then the reason for this is that your position doesn't seem to even apply to the issue and you should do more research to show why it would apply, _given the arguments already made_. Stating a position is absolutely pointless unless there arguments to back them up. There needs to be evidence or at least convincing arguments to change data, and this has been consistently lacking (as has been pointed out as well). Simply stating positions is arguing by assertion, and we all know how unreasonable that is.
OMG THE TZ DATABASE IS DESTROYED FOREVAR AND EVAR WHY DO YOU HATE THE KITTENZ???!?!?!
That's just childish - we only heard this silly argument from you. Ridiculing other people or their arguments is also not an argument in itself. Well, at least not a reasonable one. What this discussion needs is more reasonable arguments in favour of the change. So far, there has been a lot of arguing besides the point, and very few arguments in favour of the change that even apply to the case. That is, there might have been convincing arguments, but it's unclear whether they apply - for example, if the new data would indeed be better, then replacing very bogus data by less bogus data might well make sense, but I haven't seen anybody argue the new data is better. The only argument that trivially stands in favour is that it decreases maintainance burden (there are a few variations). Anything else is usually conditional on the assertion that the new data is better, or that the change data doesn't cause disruption etc., with no attempts to even rationalise these assumptions. -- The choice of a Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG -----==- _GNU_ http://www.deliantra.net ----==-- _ generation ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / schmorp@schmorp.de -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\