On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 17:10:18 GMT, Pavel Rappo <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Please review this documentation-only change, which I believe does **NOT** >> require CSR. >> >> The change touches java.time.** classes that I happen to have been using a >> lot recently. While the diff is pretty self-describing, here's the summary >> of what I did: >> >> * used a comma separator for some big integer values, to improve readability; >> * fixed a few typos and grammar. >> >> While I'm open to discuss the change, I also have some questions. Note: I'm >> not attempting to address those questions in this PR. >> >> * What's the significance of the second argument in >> Duration.between(Temporal, Temporal) being exclusive? For example, would the >> result of the following call be different if the second argument was >> inclusive? >> >> Duration.between(Instant.ofEpochSecond(1), Instant.ofEpochSecond(2)) >> >> Are there any cases here where that distinction matters? >> >> * In many cases, the following phrase is used throughout documentation: >> >> > positive or negative >> >> While the intent is clearly to stress the directed nature of values, >> shouldn't we -- for completeness -- also mention zero where applicable? >> >> * What's the significance of title-case for Java Time-Scale? FWIW, the >> documentation also uses "Java time-scale". > > Pavel Rappo has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > An empty commit to kick GHA > /csr A CSR is needed due to the changes to the text that imply a change in > semantics, for example, changing 'month" to "day". Even if they are viewed as > being incorrect, it needs a thorough review. Thanks for your review, Roger. I'm genuinely confused as to why you think CSR is required here. That month/day is clearly a typo. If it was not, clients would have noticed it long ago. I could imagine that CSR is required for my change to "positive, negative *or zero* length" duration. If so, let me exclude it from this PR, and instead introduce a new PR where we deal with this and other cases of missed zeros systematically. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27296#issuecomment-3300154850
