On 27 September 2013 15:04 Rushabh Lathia wrote: >>On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Haribabu kommi >><haribabu.ko...@huawei.com<mailto:haribabu.ko...@huawei.com>> wrote: >>I feel changing the year value to accept the length (>4) is not simple. >>So many places the year length crossing more than length 4 is not considered. >>Search in the code with "yyyy" and correct all related paths.
>Right, changing the year value to accept the length (>4) is not simple because >so >many places the year length crossing plus most of the please having assumption >that it will be always <4. >Tried to fix issue more couple of places but I don't feeling like its always >going >to be safe to assume that we covered all path. >Still looking and wondering if we can do change in any simple place or whether >we can find any other smarter way to fix the issue. If the changes are very high to deal all scenarios, I feel it is better do it only in scenarios where the use cases needs it, until it is not confusing users. The rest can be documented. Any other opinions/suggestions welcome. Regards, Hari babu.
