On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 16:17:32 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to fix the issue
>> noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8212895?
>>
>> As noted in that issue, the `ChronoField.INSTANT_SECONDS` currently is
>> initialized to have a
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 16:17:32 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to fix the issue
>> noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8212895?
>>
>> As noted in that issue, the `ChronoField.INSTANT_SECONDS` currently is
>> initialized to have a
On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 06:08:00 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Naoto, Roger, should we consider a release note for this change or is the CSR
> itself enough?
I think CSR is enough, as users' chance of encountering any issue is very slim.
My $0.02
-
PR Comment:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 16:17:32 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to fix the issue
>> noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8212895?
>>
>> As noted in that issue, the `ChronoField.INSTANT_SECONDS` currently is
>> initialized to have a
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 16:17:32 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to fix the issue
>> noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8212895?
>>
>> As noted in that issue, the `ChronoField.INSTANT_SECONDS` currently is
>> initialized to have a
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 16:17:32 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to fix the issue
>> noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8212895?
>>
>> As noted in that issue, the `ChronoField.INSTANT_SECONDS` currently is
>> initialized to have a
> Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to fix the issue
> noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8212895?
>
> As noted in that issue, the `ChronoField.INSTANT_SECONDS` currently is
> initialized to have a minimum and maximum values of `Long.MIN_VALUE` and
>
