On Tue, 07 May 2013, random832@fastmail.us wrote:
At the risk of annoying people by continuing this discussion, I'm confused what the supposed cost of this change actually is.
I had not noticed, until your message, that there was already an Asia/Tel_Aviv zone, so I had incorrectly assumed that changing the representative city for Israel would be more costly. I suspect that some of the objections were derived from a similar misunderstanding.
Both names already exist in the database, which makes it even less of a cost than renaming a timezone (and leaving an alias behind) usually has.
Given that there's a dispute about whether or not the city of Jerusalem is in the country of Israel, I think it would be sensible to avoid using Jerusalem as the representative city for Israel's timezone. Given that there is already an Asia/Tel_Aviv zone, with identical data to the Asia/Jerusalem zone (implemented via a "Link" directive in the input data), and that there is no dispute about whether or not Tel Aviv is in Israel, and that Tel Aviv is the largest city in the undisputed part of Israel, I think it would be reasonable to use Tel Aviv as the representative city for Israel's timezone. Accordingly, I suggest: * Reverse the direction of the link, making Asia/Tel_Aviv the primary name and making Asia/Jerusalem a link to it. * Use Asia/Tel_Aviv instead of Asia/Jerusalem in zone.tab. --apb (Alan Barrett)