> On 17 Mar 2014, at 11:17, Stephen Colebourne <scolebou...@joda.org> wrote: > > To confirm, this counts as a review "yes"?
Yes. Sorry if this wasn't clear. -Chris. > Stephen > > >> On 12 March 2014 14:27, Chris Hegarty <chris.hega...@oracle.com> wrote: >> The change look ok to me too. >> >> There is a change in behavior here, but I don't expect it to be surprising ( >> no NPE where there once was ), so I think it should be fine for 8u-dev also. >> >> The TCK test changes however, may not be suitable for 8u. Though I'm not >> sure how these tests feed from the OpenJDK repo into the actual TCK. >> >> -Chris. >> >>> On 12/03/14 13:54, roger riggs wrote: >>> >>> Looks fine, (not a reviewer). >>> >>> I can sponsor the fix when reviewed. >>> >>> Thanks, Roger >>> >>> >>>> On 3/12/2014 6:45 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote: >>>> >>>> This is a request for review of this bug: >>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8036818 >>>> >>>> The method DateTimeFormatter withResolverFields() is supposed to >>>> accept null. This is to allow a coy of the formatter to be returned >>>> reset to the original state of having no resolver fields. The docs >>>> say: >>>> "@param resolverFields the new set of resolver fields, null if no fields" >>>> which was written to indicate that resetting to null is permitted. >>>> >>>> The fix is to check for null and return a copy of the formatter. Note >>>> that there are two variations of the method which need fixing. >>>> >>>> Proposed patch: >>>> https://gist.github.com/jodastephen/9395197 >>>> The patch includes no spec changes. >>>> The patch fixes the broken TCK tests. >>>> >>>> I need a reviewer and a committer please. >>>> thanks >>>> Stephen >>
