RE: RFR: 8231098: (tz) Upgrade time-zone data to tzdata2019c

2019-09-18 Thread Ramanand Patil
September 17, 2019 11:25 PM > To: Martin Buchholz > Cc: Ramanand Patil ; core-libs-dev d...@openjdk.java.net>; i18n-dev > Subject: Re: RFR: 8231098: (tz) Upgrade time-zone data to > tzdata2019c > > On 9/17/19 10:14 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote: > > > > > > On

Re: RFR: 8231098: (tz) Upgrade time-zone data to tzdata2019c

2019-09-17 Thread naoto . sato
On 9/17/19 10:14 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote: On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 9:45 AM > wrote: +1 On 9/17/19 8:29 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote: > Looks good to me. > At Google we also integrated tzdata2019c, and it was uneventful (good!). > But

Re: RFR: 8231098: (tz) Upgrade time-zone data to tzdata2019c

2019-09-17 Thread Martin Buchholz
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 9:45 AM wrote: > +1 > > On 9/17/19 8:29 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote: > > Looks good to me. > > At Google we also integrated tzdata2019c, and it was uneventful (good!). > > But we're still using rearguard format. > > The vanguard/rearguard distinction is a source of errors,

Re: RFR: 8231098: (tz) Upgrade time-zone data to tzdata2019c

2019-09-17 Thread naoto . sato
+1 On 9/17/19 8:29 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote: Looks good to me. At Google we also integrated tzdata2019c, and it was uneventful (good!). But we're still using rearguard format. The vanguard/rearguard distinction is a source of errors, so it should be made clear what format is being used to

Re: RFR: 8231098: (tz) Upgrade time-zone data to tzdata2019c

2019-09-17 Thread Martin Buchholz
Looks good to me. At Google we also integrated tzdata2019c, and it was uneventful (good!). But we're still using rearguard format. The vanguard/rearguard distinction is a source of errors, so it should be made clear what format is being used to import the files. If you have a script to update the