new Java 1.8.0_72

[Roedy Green]

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

[Arne Vajhøj]

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

[Roedy Green]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 22:20:38 -0500, Arne Vajhøj <ar...@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

[Jan Burse]

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

Roedy Green schrieb:

[Arne Vajhøj]

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

[Eric Douglas]

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.

[Eric Sosman]

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

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

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 1/21/2016 9:57 AM, Eric Douglas wrote:

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

[Eric Douglas]

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.

[Arne Vajhøj]

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

[Jan Burse]

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:

[Arne Vajhøj]

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