Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 10:42:37 +0100 (MET) From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org (FreeBSD-current users) Cc: wollman@lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: Can anyone explain...? Message-ID: <199611240942.KAA10256@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <9611231832.AA04161@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> from Garrett Wollman at "Nov 23, 96 01:32:44 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Garrett Wollman wrote: > > It would be worth keeping MET for backward compatibility? > > CET does make better sense though as the standard name. > > That doesn't make any sense. A timezone only has a single set of > abbreviations. What's wrong with a symlink for the MET pointing to CET? Too many people here know the timezone by the name `MET' already, and will blindly use that name. No longer supporting it will cause a support nightmare, however ``technically correct'' your decision for CET might look at the first glance. Remeber, we aren't alone in a room where we can pick up whatever decision we want. We've got a user base, and a history track. I care more for our userbase than for the decision of some maintainer of an external software package. Again: we should support historically used timezone abbreviations at least for a transitional period. There's precedence for such actions e.g. with the ``technically more correct'' names for the ISO-8859 locales. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611240942.KAA10256>