Re: [tz] Chilean Government annuounced new date for leaving and entering DST in 2012
On Feb 29, 2012, at 9:00 AM, tz-request@iana.org wrote:
Thank you so much for the diff. - as you said, we can only hope this change gets formalized before March 11 There is another thread about this ([tz] Updated Proposed time zone package changes (Armenia, Chile, Falklands, Tokelau, Antarctica, Creston(Canada))), according to the contents in that thread an updated timezone package will be released on March 1st 2012
Since Microsoft also seems to be taking this seriously and preparing a hotfix http://blogs.technet.com/b/latam/archive/2012/02/27/chile-dst-2012-fallback.... I am currently assuming that this change is "official", and recommending including it in the March 1 timezone update. Finally, I realized that once again I forgot to do the Antarctica file, so here is an update for that file which patches in all the recent time zone changes over the last few years. Officially, ChileAQ should have the same offset and rules as mainland Chile, but I don't know what is done in actual practice. --- antarctica.orig 2011-09-20 14:55:03.000000000 -0300 +++ antarctica 2012-02-29 10:15:23.000000000 -0300 @@ -43,6 +43,15 @@ Rule ChileAQ 1998 only - Sep 27 4:00u 1:00 S Rule ChileAQ 1999 only - Apr 4 3:00u 0 - -Rule ChileAQ 1999 max - Oct Sun>=9 4:00u 1:00 S -Rule ChileAQ 2000 max - Mar Sun>=9 3:00u 0 - +Rule ChileAQ 1999 2010 - Oct Sun>=9 4:00u 1:00 S +Rule ChileAQ 2011 only - Aug Sun>=16 4:00u 1:00 S +Rule ChileAQ 2012 only - Sep 2 4:00u 1:00 S +Rule ChileAQ 2013 max - Oct Sun>=9 4:00u 1:00 S +Rule ChileAQ 2000 2007 - Mar Sun>=9 3:00u 0 - +Rule ChileAQ 2008 only - Mar 30 3:00u 0 - +Rule ChileAQ 2009 only - Mar Sun>=9 3:00u 0 - +Rule ChileAQ 2010 only - Apr Sun>=1 3:00u 0 - +Rule ChileAQ 2011 only - May Sun>=2 3:00u 0 - +Rule ChileAQ 2012 only - Apr 29 3:00u 0 - +Rule ChileAQ 2013 max - Mar Sun>=9 3:00u 0 - # These rules are stolen from the `australasia' file. -- Glenn Eychaner (geychaner@lco.cl) Telescope Systems Programmer, Las Campanas Observatory
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:19:40 -0300 From: Glenn Eychaner <geychaner@lco.cl> Message-ID: <3B83E6C4-CEDB-4F2A-B44E-B3768DBFC4C3@lco.cl> | I am currently assuming that this change is "official", and | recommending including it in the March 1 timezone update. It was already in the proposed update, and remains in the actual release that I am preparing to send soon now (though for obscure local reasons, "now" when I type this, and "now" when you all receive it aren't the same - this message, and others, will just remain in my laptop until I get it connected to the network a little later...) | Finally, I realized that once again I forgot to do the Antarctica file, That data was already there, as best I can tell, just the same as you have it (except we have the 2012 April transition encoded as "Apr Sun>=23" (last Sunday in April) rather than the "Apr 29" you have (which is, of course, the same thing). When the update appears it will contain everything we currently know about Chile I believe. If your government decides to adopt some other policy instead, then we'll need to issue another update. kre
On Mar 1, 2012, at 7:37 AM, Robert Elz wrote:
| Finally, I realized that once again I forgot to do the Antarctica file,
That data was already there, as best I can tell, just the same as you have it (except we have the 2012 April transition encoded as "Apr Sun>=23" (last Sunday in April) rather than the "Apr 29" you have (which is, of course, the same thing).
Hmmm. The 2011n update I downloaded doesn't contain any of the post-2000 Chile changes. I thought I had submitted a patch for that once before as well, but I don't really pay attention to Antarctica.
When the update appears it will contain everything we currently know about Chile I believe. If your government decides to adopt some other policy instead, then we'll need to issue another update.
Hey, it's not my government; I just work here. :-) -G. -- Glenn Eychaner (geychaner@lco.cl) Telescope Systems Programmer, Las Campanas Observatory
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 10:43:30 -0300 From: Glenn Eychaner <geychaner@lco.cl> Message-ID: <A4A12180-EBB2-4FB9-B587-86A5EF6CAFEC@lco.cl> | The 2011n update I downloaded doesn't contain any of the post-2000 | Chile changes. No, I meant the 2012a update, a preliminary (for this list) patch for which was sent out earlier this week. kre
On Mar 1, 2012, at 12:29 PM, Robert Elz wrote:
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 10:43:30 -0300 From: Glenn Eychaner <geychaner@lco.cl> Message-ID: <A4A12180-EBB2-4FB9-B587-86A5EF6CAFEC@lco.cl>
| The 2011n update I downloaded doesn't contain any of the post-2000 | Chile changes.
No, I meant the 2012a update, a preliminary (for this list) patch for which was sent out earlier this week.
Sorry. I didn't notice before that you had included the Antarctica changes (from 2000 onward) in the patch; when I realized I had as usual forgotten about Antarctica, I created exactly the same patch based on the 2011n release. :-)
That data was already there, as best I can tell, just the same as you have it (except we have the 2012 April transition encoded as "Apr Sun>=23" (last Sunday in April) rather than the "Apr 29" you have (which is, of course, the same thing).
Incidentally, a style question: why use the "Apr Sun >= 23" notation for changes that affect only a single year, rather than just specifying the exact date (e.g. "Apr 29"), especially when the government rule in question apparently specifies the exact date anyway? For changes that affect only a single year, the exact date seems more clear and concise, so you don't have to look up the actual date of the change later. (This has probably been discussed before and I missed it.) -G. -- Glenn Eychaner (geychaner@lco.cl) Telescope Systems Programmer, Las Campanas Observatory
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 12:45:16 -0300 From: Glenn Eychaner <geychaner@lco.cl> Message-ID: <C6BB4A22-34F5-45E5-8062-F1219AE328D5@lco.cl> | Incidentally, a style question: why use the "Apr Sun >= 23" notation | for changes that affect only a single year, rather than just specifying | the exact date (e.g. "Apr 29"), I don't recall any specific policy on this - personally I would mostly use the explicit date for any case where it's known for sure that the rule applies to only one year, but where it is possible that it might be extended then the algorithmic form can make it easier to see that multiple years can in fact be expressed in one rule - so if next year they decide Apr 28 is the magic date, then we could just use the same rule and have it apply to multiple years, rather than building a long list of one year only cases. My only other policy would be to not make meaningless changes that cause churn in the source files but change nothing - so now the rule is written the way it is, it will most probably remain that way, even if next year the "last Sunday in April" strategy isn't adopted. kre
participants (2)
-
Glenn Eychaner -
Robert Elz