On 12/03/2014 10:52, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
This is a request for review of this bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8036785
During development, ChronoLocalDate had a generic type parameter. It
was removed during the development of JSR-310. The Javadoc was not
updated to reflect
At the time it was originally written I don't think @apiNote existed.
I agree it would be good to get the separation in there. However my
current concern is getting the change back to jdk8u, and it seems that
the simplest solution might be the best to achieve that.
Perhaps later, I might then
On 19/03/2014 10:59, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
At the time it was originally written I don't think @apiNote existed.
I agree it would be good to get the separation in there. However my
current concern is getting the change back to jdk8u, and it seems that
the simplest solution might be the best
Looks fine. (not a Reviewer)
On 3/12/2014 6:52 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
This is a request for review of this bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8036785
During development, ChronoLocalDate had a generic type parameter. It
was removed during the development of JSR-310. The
This is a request for review of this bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8036785
During development, ChronoLocalDate had a generic type parameter. It
was removed during the development of JSR-310. The Javadoc was not
updated to reflect the removal.
The necessary change is to text that
