Sounds good. Barring further discussion, I'll jump on this start of May. Thank you again!
On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 3:59 PM Naoto Sato <[email protected]> wrote: > No problem. But let’s leave it for a bit in case someone else wants to > jump into the discussion > > Naoto > > On 4/20/26 12:30 PM, David Alayachew wrote: > > Wow, ty vm! > > > > I see that it is assigned to you -- is that something I could volunteer > > to make a PR for? The implementation appears to be very straightforward. > > > > Ty again for the help and speedy response. > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2026, 12:46 PM Naoto Sato <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > Hi David, > > > > Sounds reasonable to me. Filed an RFE: > > https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8382539 <https:// > > bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8382539> > > > > Naoto > > > > On 4/19/26 3:45 PM, David Alayachew wrote: > > > Hello @core-libs-dev <[email protected] <mailto:core- > > [email protected]>>, > > > > > > The class j.t.f.DateTimeFormatter has BASIC_ISO_DATE, but not > > > BASIC_ISO_DATE_TIME. That would be very useful for saving > > filenames, and > > > it's weird that there are several time versions of the date > > versions in the > > > DateTimeFormatter fields section. > > > > > > Would this make sense to add as a new formatter field on > > DateTimeFormatter? > > > > > > Thank you for your time and consideration. > > > David Alayachew > > > >
