This change seems to beyond my proposal that the "GMT±hh:mm" format is
used for *new* zones with the "±hh" format. But this change removes
*existing* zones which have changed to use the "±hh" format in tzdata.
Can this cause any compatibility issues?
And have we agreed to use the "GMT±hh:mm" format?
Thanks,
Masayoshi
On 5/27/2016 10:19 PM, Seán Coffey wrote:
Looks fine to me Ramanand. the recent 2016d changes have introduced
some boundary issues for JDK rule parsing and those issues can be
followed up in separate issues like you say.
Regards,
Sean.
On 26/05/16 14:22, Ramanand Patil wrote:
HI all,
Please review the latest TZDATA integration (tzdata2016d) to JDK9.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8151876
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rpatil/8151876/webrev.00/
Patch Contains:
1. IANA tzdata2016d integration into JDK. [It also includes
tzdata2016b and tzdata2016c which was not integrated].
2. "GMT[+ -]hh:mm" is used for formatting of the modified or
newly added TimeZones in tzdata2016d.
[This is done to accommodate the IANA's new system where the zones
use numeric time zone abbreviations like "+04" instead of invented
abbreviations like "ASTT".]
3. Test case:
java/time/test/java/time/format/TestZoneTextPrinterParser.java is
updated to include the failures because of GMT[+ -]hh:mm format names.
4. Few other failing tests: For few other failing tests, new
linked bugs are created and will be addressed in a separate patch.
Regards,
Ramanand.
