Bulk backports request of java.time bug fixes to jdk8u

[Stephen Colebourne]

I have rechecked these commits and I am happy for them to go into
jdk8u. (Not an official reviewer)
thanks to Roger for preparing these,
Stephen



On 7 April 2014 15:32, roger riggs <roger.riggs at oracle.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please consider the following bugs/corresponding changesets for 8u.
>
> They are in jdk 9 and apply cleanly as is and have passed JPRT.
>
> changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/cc1e17f7848c
>  8036818: <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8036818>
> DateTimeFormatter withResolverFields() fails to accept null
>
> changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/0312741183c9
> 8032502 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8032502>: java.time add
> @param tags to readObject
>
> changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/784ab0cb4874
> 8035106 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8035106>: Typo in
> java.time.format.Parsed error message
>
> changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/357781084a1b
> 8032491 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8032491>:
> DateTimeFormatter fixed width adjacent value parsing does not match spec
>
> changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/21bdd212f727
> 8036785 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8036785>: ChronoLocalDate
> refers to generics that have been removed
>
> changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/fd255db6c0d0
> 8035099 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8035099>:
> LocalTime.with(MILLI_OF_DAY/MICRO_OF_DAY) incorrect
>
> Changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/dc0edff71f1c
> 8032749 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8032749>: Typo in
> java.time.Clock
> 8032888 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8032888>: Error message
> typo in TemporalAccessor
> 8032558 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8032558>: Instant spec
> includes incorrect assertion wrt valid range
> 8032494 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8032494>:
> DateTimeFormatter spec includes irrelevent detail on parsing pattern
>
> Thanks, Roger
>
>