JDK 1.7.0_09 and JDK 1.6.0_37 released
 

JDK 1.7.0_09 and JDK 1.6.0_37 have been released
see http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/ja...ads/index.html

By 2012-01-16T17:00PDT I will have updated the extra notes at
http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jdk.html
on how to install and polish the installation.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com
The iPhone 5 is a low end Rolex.

Re: JDK 1.7.0_09 and JDK 1.6.0_37 released
 

On 10/16/12 8:46 PM, Wayne wrote:
> On 10/16/2012 5:07 PM, Roedy Green wrote:
>> JDK 1.7.0_09 and JDK 1.6.0_37 have been released
>> see http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/ja...ads/index.html
>>
>> By 2012-01-16T17:00PDT I will have updated the extra notes at
>> http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jdk.html
>> on how to install and polish the installation.
>>
>
> What happened to 1.7.0_08? The release notes didn't say
> why a version number was skipped.
>
Even releases are for different type than odd (I don't remember the
details, basically the difference between beta and stable, or some such)

Re: JDK 1.7.0_09 and JDK 1.6.0_37 released
 

On 10/16/2012 8:46 PM, Wayne wrote:
> On 10/16/2012 5:07 PM, Roedy Green wrote:
>> JDK 1.7.0_09 and JDK 1.6.0_37 have been released
>> see http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/ja...ads/index.html
>>
>> By 2012-01-16T17:00PDT I will have updated the extra notes at
>> http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jdk.html
>> on how to install and polish the installation.
>>
>
> What happened to 1.7.0_08? The release notes didn't say
> why a version number was skipped.
>


Critical patches always have odd numbers.

<http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/java-update-release-numbers-change-1836624.html>

Re: JDK 1.7.0_09 and JDK 1.6.0_37 released
 

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 23:46:47 -0400, Wayne <nospam@all.invalid> wrote,
quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

>>
>
>What happened to 1.7.0_08? The release notes didn't say
>why a version number was skipped.

There is an explanation. I could not make sense of it, but it had to
do something with an unexpected need to issue an emergency security
fix. It gets worse than that. Some version numbers went BACKWARDS.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com
There are four possible ways to poke a card into a slot.
Nearly always, only one way works. To me that betrays a
Fascist mentality, demanding customers conform to some
arbitrary rule, and hassling them to discover the magic
orientation. The polite way to do it is to design the reader
slot so that all four ways work, or so that all the customer
has to do is put the card in the vicinity of the reader.

Re: JDK 1.7.0_09 and JDK 1.6.0_37 released
 

On 10/16/2012 11:46 PM, Wayne wrote:
> What happened to 1.7.0_08? The release notes didn't say
> why a version number was skipped.

Oracle use odd for security fixed and even for other fixes and they had
planned to do:

u5 - security fix
u6 - general fix
u7 - security fix
u8 - general fix
u9 - security fix
u10 - general fix

After the release of u7 a zero day vulnerability was found, so they had
to release u9 out of order.

To avoid going backwards in version numbers they had to call this
version for u10.

Arne

Re: JDK 1.7.0_09 and JDK 1.6.0_37 released
 

On 10/17/2012 3:26 AM, Roedy Green wrote:
> It gets worse than that. Some version numbers went BACKWARDS.

What version numbers??

Arne

Re: JDK 1.7.0_09 and JDK 1.6.0_37 released
 

Arne Vajhoej wrote:
>
> Oracle use odd for security fixed and even for other fixes and they had
> planned to do:
>
> u5 - security fix
> u6 - general fix
> u7 - security fix
> u8 - general fix
> u9 - security fix
> u10 - general fix
>
> After the release of u7 a zero day vulnerability was found, so they had
> to release u9 out of order.
>
> To avoid going backwards in version numbers they had to call this
> version for u10.

Well then why don't they do

1.7.0_05 - security fix
1.7.1 - general fix
1.7.1_01 - security fix
1.7.2 - general fix
1.7.2_01 - security fix
1.7.3 - general fix

The they could have easily done

1.7.1_02 - second security fix

The first time I wondered about such was 1.6.0_10 ...

--

"I'm a doctor, not a mechanic." Dr Leonard McCoy <mccoy@ncc1701.starfleet.fed>
"I'm a mechanic, not a doctor." Volker Borchert <v_borchert@despammed.com>

Re: JDK 1.7.0_09 and JDK 1.6.0_37 released
 

On 10/20/2012 5:05 AM, Volker Borchert wrote:
> Arne Vajhoej wrote:
>>
>> Oracle use odd for security fixed and even for other fixes and they had
>> planned to do:
>>
>> u5 - security fix
>> u6 - general fix
>> u7 - security fix
>> u8 - general fix
>> u9 - security fix
>> u10 - general fix
>>
>> After the release of u7 a zero day vulnerability was found, so they had
>> to release u9 out of order.
>>
>> To avoid going backwards in version numbers they had to call this
>> version for u10.
>
> Well then why don't they do
>
> 1.7.0_05 - security fix
> 1.7.1 - general fix
> 1.7.1_01 - security fix
> 1.7.2 - general fix
> 1.7.2_01 - security fix
> 1.7.3 - general fix
>
> The they could have easily done

Yes.

But naming conventions are just that.

Oracle decide to do things one way.

And they comply with that.

They could have chosen to do things dozens of different ways.

But the point on having a convention is to follow it.

And those that have programs that parse the version number may be
very happy that Oracle chose to be consistent.

Arne