Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: v_borchert@despammed.com (Volker Borchert) Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: JDK 1.7.0_09 and JDK 1.6.0_37 released Date: 20 Oct 2012 09:05:45 GMT Organization: Private site at Eddersheim, Germany Lines: 37 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <507e2a1e$0$22402$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com> <507eca95$0$282$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> X-Trace: individual.net CrjwHQhjk0G1/0UqB0TwigtQt7oJ/hygGg/kaPe/VLCx9JXz5KGTWX+6EAOH/fGMca Cancel-Lock: sha1:rxsTJO7Ns4sLpT7EMYjVUBI97Og= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:19448 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