agreed (2)

agreed

On 2021-06-15 10:56, Stephen Colebourne via tz wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 08:18, Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:

On 6/10/21 4:28 PM, Stephen Colebourne via tz wrote:

If a statement is to be made it should be in both news and theory.

Sure, that could be done. Proposed draft attached. I have not installed
this in the development sources.

The patch is fine so far as it goes. But it makes a mockery of not
reverting the merging patch under discussion.

- revert the patch and any previous patches that merged zones across
country borders

This alternative is less appealing, for reasons already discussed. I
think we're better off with a technical compromise, such as 'make'
one-liner mentioned above, or something like the compromise I suggested
at the start of this thread
<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2021-June/030220.html>.

We seem to be at an impasse.

I don't think there is any support from the mailing list for the
merging patch to remain in the repo. You've had many requests to
revert it, and no requests to retain it.

There are technical solutions available to reduce the amount of data
published to downstream users, but the starting point must be a fully
populated database, not one that is logically broken. The next action
must be to revert. Then we can agree on any technical measures
necessary.

Stephen