[10] RFR 8180469: Wrong short form text for supplemental Japanese era

[Naoto Sato]

Hi Roger,

On 8/31/17 6:27 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
> Hi Naoto,
> 
> In the non-javatime case(line 95), is the change from style == LONG to 
> style & LONG !=0 correct?
> I would not have expected to see a change in that case given the bug.
> It will now be ignoring the STANDALONE bit in the style.

Yes, the change in non-javatime case is intentional. If the base style 
is LONG, non-abbreviated name should be used no matter the style is 
STANDALONE or FORMAT.

> 
> If so, the patch is fine as is.

Thanks!

Naoto

> 
> Thanks, Roger
> 
> 
> On 8/30/2017 6:55 PM, Naoto Sato wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Please review the fix to the following issue:
>>
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180469
>>
>> The proposed changeset is located at:
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~naoto/8180469/webrev.00/
>>
>> The problem was caused by the difference of the Era display name for 
>> "SHORT" style between java.time and java.util.Calendar.
>>
>> Naoto
>