This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] ja_JP locale: Fix the offset in era-string for Taisho gan-nen [BZ #24162]
20.02.2019 08:54 Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/18/19 6:27 PM, Rafal Luzynski wrote:
> >> diff --git a/localedata/locales/ja_JP b/localedata/locales/ja_JP
> >> index 1fd2fee..9bfbb2b 100644
> >> --- a/localedata/locales/ja_JP
> >> +++ b/localedata/locales/ja_JP
> >> @@ -14951,7 +14951,7 @@ era
> >> "+:2:1990//01//01:+*:<U5E73><U6210>:%EC%Ey<U5E74>";/
> >> "+:2:1927//01//01:1989//01//07:<U662D><U548C>:%EC%Ey<U5E74>";/
> >> "+:1:1926//12//25:1926//12//31:<U662D><U548C>:%EC<U5143><U5E74>";/
> >> "+:2:1913//01//01:1926//12//24:<U5927><U6B63>:%EC%Ey<U5E74>";/
> >> - "+:2:1912//07//30:1912//12//31:<U5927><U6B63>:%EC<U5143><U5E74>";/
> >> + "+:1:1912//07//30:1912//12//31:<U5927><U6B63>:%EC<U5143><U5E74>";/
> >> "+:6:1873//01//01:1912//07//29:<U660E><U6CBB>:%EC%Ey<U5E74>";/
> >> "+:1:0001//01//01:1872//12//31:<U897F><U66A6>:%EC%Ey<U5E74>";/
> >> "+:1:-0001//12//31:-*:<U7D00><U5143><U524D>:%EC%Ey<U5E74>"
> >
> > OK with the remarks mentioned above.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Rafal Luzynski <digitalfreak@lingonborough.com>
> >
> > Also I think that the issue is important and this patch does not depend
> > on other patches so it is also OK to backport it to old stable branches.
> > However, I'd like to hear an opinion of other maintainers about it.
>
> This is hard to judge. Sometimes backporting date changes like this can
> cause sorted dates to change their order, and that's not expected in a
> stable release. I would be cautious and not backport this.
If I understand correctly, a new Japanese era began on 1912-07-30 and
from that day til the end of the year the year number should be 1.
Currently that year number is 2 in glibc which is incorrect. Also whole
year 1913 has the same number 2 in glibc which is correct. This already
breaks sorting. I think that backporting this may only help and will
not break anything.
Do you sustain your objection against backporting? If not, do you have
any suggestion how many stable versions should be fixed?
Regards,
Rafal