RFR 8180469: Wrong short form text for supplemental Japanese era
Roger.Riggs at Oracle.com
Thu Aug 31 13:27:02 UTC 2017
In the non-javatime case(line 95), is the change from style == LONG to
style & LONG !=0 correct?
I would not have expected to see a change in that case given the bug.
It will now be ignoring the STANDALONE bit in the style.
If so, the patch is fine as is.
On 8/30/2017 6:55 PM, Naoto Sato wrote:
> Please review the fix to the following issue:
> The proposed changeset is located at:
> The problem was caused by the difference of the Era display name for
> "SHORT" style between java.time and java.util.Calendar.
More information about the core-libs-dev