RFR 8180469: Wrong short form text for supplemental Japanese era
naoto.sato at oracle.com
Thu Aug 31 15:18:57 UTC 2017
On 8/31/17 6:27 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
> Hi Naoto,
> 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.
Yes, the change in non-javatime case is intentional. If the base style
is LONG, non-abbreviated name should be used no matter the style is
STANDALONE or FORMAT.
> If so, the patch is fine as is.
> Thanks, Roger
> 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