Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #33488 > unrolled thread

new Java 1.8.0_72

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  new Java 1.8.0_72 Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2016-01-20 08:15 -0800
    Re: new Java 1.8.0_72 Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-01-20 22:20 -0500
      Re: new Java 1.8.0_72 Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2016-01-20 21:55 -0800
    Re: new Java 1.8.0_72 Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-01-21 15:02 +0100
      Re: new Java 1.8.0_72 Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-01-21 09:33 -0500
      Re: new Java 1.8.0_72 Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 06:57 -0800
        Re: new Java 1.8.0_72 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-01-21 10:05 -0500
        Re: new Java 1.8.0_72 Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-01-21 10:16 -0500
          Re: new Java 1.8.0_72 Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 07:25 -0800
            Re: new Java 1.8.0_72 Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-01-21 10:31 -0500
              Re: new Java 1.8.0_72 Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-01-21 16:54 +0100
                Re: new Java 1.8.0_72 Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-01-21 14:36 -0500

#33488 — new Java 1.8.0_72

There is a new Java JDK out, 1.8.0_72. Unfortunately, the JRE is
1.8.0_71. There is no 1.8.0_72 I could find.
-- 
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com
Any code of your own that you haven't looked at for six or more
months might as well have been written by someone else.
~ Eagleson's Law

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#33491

On 1/20/2016 11:15 AM, Roedy Green wrote:
> There is a new Java JDK out, 1.8.0_72.

Yes - note posted yesterday by someone else.

>                                       Unfortunately, the JRE is
> 1.8.0_71. There is no 1.8.0_72 I could find.

I see both 71 and 72 for JRE.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33492

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 22:20:38 -0500, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk>
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

>I see both 71 and 72 for JRE.

It is now there. Glad to here it.  I did not like having JRE JDK on
different versions.

http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/jre8-downloads-2133155.html

-- 
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com
Any code of your own that you haven't looked at for six or more
months might as well have been written by someone else.
~ Eagleson's Law

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33493

I was using the _71 since it was top on the
download page list. Did I do something wrong?

Roedy Green schrieb:
> There is a new Java JDK out, 1.8.0_72. Unfortunately, the JRE is
> 1.8.0_71. There is no 1.8.0_72 I could find.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33494

On 1/21/2016 9:02 AM, Jan Burse wrote:
> I was using the _71 since it was top on the
> download page list. Did I do something wrong?

I don't think so.

The current Oracle logic is:

u(N) : security fixes only
u(N+1) : security fixes + other fixes

I always take u(N+1), but the chance that you actually need one
of the additional fixes is microscopic.

But the risk that one of the other fixes actually break
something is also microscopic.

You can always study the release notes.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33495

On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 9:03:18 AM UTC-5, Jan Burse wrote:
> I was using the _71 since it was top on the
> download page list. Did I do something wrong?
> 
> Roedy Green schrieb:
> > There is a new Java JDK out, 1.8.0_72. Unfortunately, the JRE is
> > 1.8.0_71. There is no 1.8.0_72 I could find.
> >

I noticed that also, it does seem odd.  I downloaded the 71 JDK before I noticed the file name then downloaded 72.  I would think the current should be listed first and we all should be using the 72.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33496

On 1/21/2016 9:57 AM, Eric Douglas wrote:
> On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 9:03:18 AM UTC-5, Jan Burse wrote:
>> I was using the _71 since it was top on the
>> download page list. Did I do something wrong?
>>
>> Roedy Green schrieb:
>>> There is a new Java JDK out, 1.8.0_72. Unfortunately, the JRE is
>>> 1.8.0_71. There is no 1.8.0_72 I could find.
>>>
>
> I noticed that also, it does seem odd.  I downloaded the 71 JDK before I noticed the file name then downloaded 72.  I would think the current should be listed first and we all should be using the 72.

     IIRC, they started this "two for the price of one" deal with
the prior release, the 65/66 pair.

-- 
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid
"Don't be afraid of work. Make work afraid of you." -- TLM

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33498

On 1/21/2016 9:57 AM, Eric Douglas wrote:
> On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 9:03:18 AM UTC-5, Jan Burse wrote:
>> I was using the _71 since it was top on the download page list. Did
>> I do something wrong?
>>
>> Roedy Green schrieb:
>>> There is a new Java JDK out, 1.8.0_72. Unfortunately, the JRE is
>>> 1.8.0_71. There is no 1.8.0_72 I could find.
>>>
>
> I noticed that also, it does seem odd.  I downloaded the 71 JDK
> before I noticed the file name then downloaded 72.  I would think the
> current should be listed first and we all should be using the 72.

It is somewhat explained in the release notes.

And also in more detail here:

http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/cpu-psu-explained-2331472.html

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33499

On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 10:17:36 AM UTC-5, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 1/21/2016 9:57 AM, Eric Douglas wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 9:03:18 AM UTC-5, Jan Burse wrote:
> >> I was using the _71 since it was top on the download page list. Did
> >> I do something wrong?
> >>
> >> Roedy Green schrieb:
> >>> There is a new Java JDK out, 1.8.0_72. Unfortunately, the JRE is
> >>> 1.8.0_71. There is no 1.8.0_72 I could find.
> >>>
> >
> > I noticed that also, it does seem odd.  I downloaded the 71 JDK
> > before I noticed the file name then downloaded 72.  I would think the
> > current should be listed first and we all should be using the 72.
> 
> It is somewhat explained in the release notes.
> 
> And also in more detail here:
> 
> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/cpu-psu-explained-2331472.html
> 
> Arne

This sounds too complicated.  They call the 'current' version the CPU and the +1 version the PSU.  They recommend using the CPU but say to test the PSU because everything in the PSU will be in the next CPU.  I'd rather not run 2 versions, so unless they really expect the PSU to break something they're going to fix in the next CPU or I need to change before the next CPU it seems I might as well install the PSU.

It's not like I'm running the latest version in a production environment anyhow.  Unless there's a note saying critical fix install now or you're at high security risk, I just put the latest in my development environment asap and update production some weeks after.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33500

On 1/21/2016 10:25 AM, Eric Douglas wrote:
> On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 10:17:36 AM UTC-5, Arne Vajhøj
>> It is somewhat explained in the release notes.
>>
>> And also in more detail here:
>>
>> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/cpu-psu-explained-2331472.html
>>
>
> This sounds too complicated.  They call the 'current' version the CPU
> and the +1 version the PSU.  They recommend using the CPU but say to
> test the PSU because everything in the PSU will be in the next CPU.
> I'd rather not run 2 versions, so unless they really expect the PSU
> to break something they're going to fix in the next CPU or I need to
> change before the next CPU it seems I might as well install the PSU.
>
> It's not like I'm running the latest version in a production
> environment anyhow.  Unless there's a note saying critical fix
> install now or you're at high security risk, I just put the latest in
> my development environment asap and update production some weeks
> after.

I am PSU inclined as well.

CPU is for those that:
- need to put security fixes in production ASAP
- are afraid that bugs in the PSU may impact production stability

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33501

Hi,

The "should only" sounds a little bit frightening to me:

"Java SE Patch Set Updates (PSU) contain all of fixes in the 
corresponding CPU, as well as additional non-critical fixes. Java PSU 
releases should only be used if you are being impacted by one of the 
additional bugs fixed in that version. The release notes call out the 
additional fixes available in Java SE PSU releases."

http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/cpu-psu-explained-2331472.html

Anyway, I have started listening to comp.java.openjdk.hotspot.devel
recently. But this stream of posts is very difficult to comprehend,
but also interesting to see how development proceeds.

I guess anyway, should start with JDK 9 soon.

Bye

Arne Vajhøj schrieb:
> On 1/21/2016 10:25 AM, Eric Douglas wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 10:17:36 AM UTC-5, Arne Vajhøj
>>> It is somewhat explained in the release notes.
>>>
>>> And also in more detail here:
>>>
>>> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/cpu-psu-explained-2331472.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This sounds too complicated.  They call the 'current' version the CPU
>> and the +1 version the PSU.  They recommend using the CPU but say to
>> test the PSU because everything in the PSU will be in the next CPU.
>> I'd rather not run 2 versions, so unless they really expect the PSU
>> to break something they're going to fix in the next CPU or I need to
>> change before the next CPU it seems I might as well install the PSU.
>>
>> It's not like I'm running the latest version in a production
>> environment anyhow.  Unless there's a note saying critical fix
>> install now or you're at high security risk, I just put the latest in
>> my development environment asap and update production some weeks
>> after.
>
> I am PSU inclined as well.
>
> CPU is for those that:
> - need to put security fixes in production ASAP
> - are afraid that bugs in the PSU may impact production stability
>
> Arne
>
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33502

On 1/21/2016 10:54 AM, Jan Burse wrote:
> The "should only" sounds a little bit frightening to me:
>
> "Java SE Patch Set Updates (PSU) contain all of fixes in the
> corresponding CPU, as well as additional non-critical fixes. Java PSU
> releases should only be used if you are being impacted by one of the
> additional bugs fixed in that version. The release notes call out the
> additional fixes available in Java SE PSU releases."
>
> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/cpu-psu-explained-2331472.html

Question is whether the "should only" came from engineering
or legal.

:-)

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web