Ok @Naoto Sato <[email protected]>, looks like no one else has responded against this. Am I good to attempt a shot at the JBS entry?
On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 4:19 PM David Alayachew <[email protected]> wrote: > Sounds good. Barring further discussion, I'll jump on this start of May. > > Thank you again! > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 3:59 PM Naoto Sato <[email protected]> wrote: > >> No problem. But let’s leave it for a bit in case someone else wants to >> jump into the discussion >> >> Naoto >> >> On 4/20/26 12:30 PM, David Alayachew wrote: >> > Wow, ty vm! >> > >> > I see that it is assigned to you -- is that something I could volunteer >> > to make a PR for? The implementation appears to be very straightforward. >> > >> > Ty again for the help and speedy response. >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2026, 12:46 PM Naoto Sato <[email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > >> > Hi David, >> > >> > Sounds reasonable to me. Filed an RFE: >> > https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8382539 <https:// >> > bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8382539> >> > >> > Naoto >> > >> > On 4/19/26 3:45 PM, David Alayachew wrote: >> > > Hello @core-libs-dev <[email protected] <mailto:core- >> > [email protected]>>, >> > > >> > > The class j.t.f.DateTimeFormatter has BASIC_ISO_DATE, but not >> > > BASIC_ISO_DATE_TIME. That would be very useful for saving >> > filenames, and >> > > it's weird that there are several time versions of the date >> > versions in the >> > > DateTimeFormatter fields section. >> > > >> > > Would this make sense to add as a new formatter field on >> > DateTimeFormatter? >> > > >> > > Thank you for your time and consideration. >> > > David Alayachew >> > >> >>
