Lombard? Presidio?

[Scott Palmer]

That is a fault of dropping all the fields in the version numbers that we used to have.

Given this number:  1.7.0_09

You would think it would be possible to use more than just the last part :-)

If you were working on 1.7.1  then all the security updates you want could be released for 1.7.0 without causing any problems to the scheduled release numbering. It would also be clear what was a "security uber-fix" and what was part of the regular development cycle.

This is what happens when marketing people are allowed to pick numbers.  I would propose changing the version number reported for Java 8 to 8.0.0 but somebody will fight it I'm sure :-)

Scott

On 2012-10-19, at 10:19 AM, Richard Bair <richard.bair at oracle.com> wrote:

> Yes, you are right, and when some security uber-fix comes along due to some ravaging exploit and we have to bump all the version numbers -- in such cases you really wish you didn't have version numbers. At least for the update releases.
> 
> Richard
> 
> On Oct 19, 2012, at 5:11 AM, Weiqi Gao wrote:
> 
>> The problem with version numbers is that you never know exactly which version you are working on until you are about to release.  Just make sure people who needs to know the mapping from code names to actual version numbers know about them.  A couple lines of explanation in the project's front page will do fine.
>> 
>> --
>> Weiqi
>> 
>> On Oct 19, 2012, at 2:48 AM, Richard Bair <richard.bair at oracle.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I've wondered why we don't rename Lombard to 8.0 in JIRA, since that's what it is. Presidio was 2.0, wasn't it? Gosh, I should go to bed. From here out I think we're sticking with version numbers. I'll ask Brian Beck (Brian, are you there?) what the story on that is.
>>> 
>>> Richard
>>> 
>>> On Oct 18, 2012, at 5:22 PM, Mark Fortner wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Could somebody add a note in the description of the Lombard & Presidio
>>>> releases in JIRA that explains how these code names map to the current
>>>> JavaFX version numbers?  I think there was some discussion earlier about
>>>> this.  If the description's in JIRA at least it will be easier to set
>>>> expectations.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> 
>>>> Mark
>>> 
>> 
>