On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 09:02:11 GMT, Per Minborg <pminb...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> We have, for long, established that changes like this should be discussed 
>> before putting forward any code. Yet, I am unable to find any discussion in 
>> the appropriate mailing list. Please send me the link to the mailing list 
>> discussion. I must have missed it for some reason.
>
>> @minborg
>> 
>> The process went like this:
>> 
>> On August 23rd, I posted an email to the core-libs-dev mailing list titled 
>> "Introduce and utilize DecimalDigits.appendPair for efficient two-digit 
>> formatting." The message included a link to the pull request (PR) #26911. At 
>> the time, the PR was in draft status.
>> 
>> On August 26th, @jodastephen commented on the PR.
>> 
>> He's an expert in java.time, and based on his comments, I created an issue 
>> and changed the PR status to RFR.
> 
> This mail appears to merely point out that there is a PR with code. I am 
> unable to locate any discussion *prior* to any code being presented. E.g., 
> whether we should do this or not. What are the pros and cons, etc. What did I 
> miss?

> > @minborg
> > The process went like this:
> > On August 23rd, I posted an email to the core-libs-dev mailing list titled 
> > "Introduce and utilize DecimalDigits.appendPair for efficient two-digit 
> > formatting." The message included a link to the pull request (PR) #26911. 
> > At the time, the PR was in draft status.
> > On August 26th, @jodastephen commented on the PR.
> > He's an expert in java.time, and based on his comments, I created an issue 
> > and changed the PR status to RFR.
> 
> This mail appears to merely point out that there is a PR with code. I am 
> unable to locate any discussion _prior_ to any code being presented. E.g., 
> whether we should do this or not. What are the pros and cons, etc. What did I 
> miss?

I think that discussing via email + draft Pull Request will better describe the 
changes and their effects than just email.

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26911#issuecomment-3305066592

Reply via email to