JDK 1.7.0_09 and JDK 1.6.0_37 released

Discussion in 'Java' started by Roedy Green, Oct 16, 2012.

  1. Roedy Green

    Roedy Green Guest

    Roedy Green, Oct 16, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Roedy Green

    Daniel Pitts Guest

    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/java/javase/downloads/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)
     
    Daniel Pitts, Oct 17, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Roedy Green

    markspace Guest

    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/java/javase/downloads/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>
     
    markspace, Oct 17, 2012
    #3
  4. Roedy Green

    Roedy Green Guest

    On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 23:46:47 -0400, Wayne <> 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.
     
    Roedy Green, Oct 17, 2012
    #4
  5. Roedy Green

    Arne Vajhoej Guest

    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
     
    Arne Vajhoej, Oct 17, 2012
    #5
  6. Roedy Green

    Arne Vajhoej Guest

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


    What version numbers??

    Arne
     
    Arne Vajhoej, Oct 17, 2012
    #6
  7. 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 <>
    "I'm a mechanic, not a doctor." Volker Borchert <>
     
    Volker Borchert, Oct 20, 2012
    #7
  8. Roedy Green

    Arne Vajhoej Guest

    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
     
    Arne Vajhoej, Oct 21, 2012
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ulf Meinhardt
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    6,476
    Ulf Meinhardt
    Aug 10, 2006
  2. emukang
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    700
    Andrew Thompson
    Oct 24, 2006
  3. Jaggu
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,020
    Nigel Wade
    Jan 8, 2007
  4. Roedy Green
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,486
    Arne Vajhøj
    Aug 6, 2009
  5. Roedy Green
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    658
    Roedy Green
    Aug 11, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page