OK, I'll sponsor this. I need to run this through our internal testing system
before pushing it. I'll follow up here with results.
s'marks
On 10/10/16 1:34 AM, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan wrote:
Hi all,
Would you kindly review the latest webrev now?
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~reinhapa/reviews/8134373/webrev.02
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ereinhapa/reviews/8134373/webrev.02>
Thanks in advance.
Kind regards,
Jonathan
On 7 October 2016 at 21:59, Patrick Reinhart <patr...@reini.net
<mailto:patr...@reini.net>> wrote:
Here is the latest webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~reinhapa/reviews/8134373/webrev.02
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ereinhapa/reviews/8134373/webrev.02>
-Patrick
> Am 07.10.2016 um 12:00 schrieb Jonathan Bluett-Duncan
<jbluettdun...@gmail.com <mailto:jbluettdun...@gmail.com>>:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Sorry for the delayed response, I've been busy lately with university
and other things.
>
> Thank you all for your comments. I'll leave the DateTimeFormatter
comment in, as you requested Stephen and Roger, and I'll work again with
Patrick as soon as I'm ready.
>
> Kind regards,
> Jonathan
>
> On 6 October 2016 at 09:38, Stephen Colebourne <scolebou...@joda.org
<mailto:scolebou...@joda.org>> wrote:
> On 6 October 2016 at 00:00, Stuart Marks <stuart.ma...@oracle.com
<mailto:stuart.ma...@oracle.com>> wrote:
> >> I think you should perform no change to DateTimeFormatter (other than
> >> a comment) as part of this changeset. The behaviour of that
> >> DateTimeFormatter method is subtle, and I now suspect that what we
> >> have there might be the best option.
> >
> > I had recommended removing the comment from DateTimeFormatter, but if
> > Stephen wants the comment in, that's fine with me. In fact I'll defer to
> > what Stephen (and Roger Riggs) want with this code, since they're the
> > maintainers.
>
> I think it makes sense to leave the new comment in. All further change
> should be under 8167222.
>
> Stephen
>
