Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

8250636: iso8601_time returns incorrect offset part on MacOS #52

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

8250636: iso8601_time returns incorrect offset part on MacOS #52

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

@snazarkin
Copy link

@snazarkin snazarkin commented Dec 9, 2020

This backport aligns jdk13 with jdk16/11/8. Backport of 8251365 is required after this patch


Progress

  • Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
  • Commit message must refer to an issue
  • Change must be properly reviewed

Issue

  • JDK-8250636: iso8601_time returns incorrect offset part on MacOS

Download

$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk13u-dev pull/52/head:pull/52
$ git checkout pull/52

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

@bridgekeeper bridgekeeper bot commented Dec 9, 2020

👋 Welcome back snazarki! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

@openjdk openjdk bot changed the title Backport 1d480a7b96005f049c1dcb16344ca48f86f01f91 8250636: iso8601_time returns incorrect offset part on MacOS Dec 9, 2020
@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Dec 9, 2020

This backport pull request has now been updated with issue from the original commit.

@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Dec 9, 2020

@snazarkin This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8250636: iso8601_time returns incorrect offset part on MacOS

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 2 new commits pushed to the master branch:

  • 7a2731e: 8254081: java/security/cert/PolicyNode/GetPolicyQualifiers.java fails due to an expired certificate
  • 7ccba65: 8233686: XML transformer uses excessive amount of memory

Please see this link for an up-to-date comparison between the source branch of this pull request and the master branch.
As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

As you do not have Committer status in this project an existing Committer must agree to sponsor your change.

➡️ To flag this PR as ready for integration with the above commit message, type /integrate in a new comment. (Afterwards, your sponsor types /sponsor in a new comment to perform the integration).

@mlbridge
Copy link

@mlbridge mlbridge bot commented Dec 9, 2020

Webrevs

@snazarkin
Copy link
Author

@snazarkin snazarkin commented Dec 10, 2020

/integrate

@openjdk openjdk bot added the sponsor label Dec 10, 2020
@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Dec 10, 2020

@snazarkin
Your change (at version 5b65eb4) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

@yan-too
Copy link
Collaborator

@yan-too yan-too commented Dec 11, 2020

/sponsor

@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Dec 11, 2020

@yan-too @snazarkin Since your change was applied there have been 2 commits pushed to the master branch:

  • 7a2731e: 8254081: java/security/cert/PolicyNode/GetPolicyQualifiers.java fails due to an expired certificate
  • 7ccba65: 8233686: XML transformer uses excessive amount of memory

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

Pushed as commit cf0e935.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.

@snazarkin snazarkin deleted the 8250636-backport branch Mar 11, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
2 participants