July 19, 2016
1:08 p.m.
Looks reasonable to me. thanks Stephen On 19 July 2016 at 13:39, Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
On 07/08/2016 01:34 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
I would recommend keeping the Time4J line in tzlink separate from the Joda-Time/Java 8 line, as while Joda-Time and Java 8 have a lot in common, Time4J doesn't have any history in common at all. It also allows you to simplify the license part, which is complex as written.
Thanks, I tried to take all that into account by installing the attached patch. This also adds a subsection for Java to try to organize things a bit better (much as we've already done for JavaScript).