This message is forwarded from Apache Commons, where a question was raised as to whether the change in behaviour of year formatting in JDK 7 was deliberate:
Stephen ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@gmx.de> Date: 12 July 2011 18:56 Subject: Re: [lang] RC4 heads up To: d...@commons.apache.org 1/ FastDateFormat The date format "yyyy yyy yy y" is formatted with JDK 7 as "2003 2003 03 2003" instead of "2003 03 03 03". So, should FastDateFormat follow the JDK in any case and adjust its result according the runtime? Interestingly Javadoc states already for Java 6: "For formatting, if the number of pattern letters is 2, the year is truncated to 2 digits; otherwise it is interpreted as a number."
