JDK 1.7.0_09 and JDK 1.6.0_37 released

[Roedy Green]

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.

 

[Daniel Pitts]

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)

 

[markspace]

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>

 

[Roedy Green]

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.

 

[Arne Vajhoej]

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]

It gets worse than that. Some version numbers went BACKWARDS.

What version numbers??

Arne

 

[Volker Borchert]

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 ...

 

[Arne Vajhoej]

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