Draft JEP: Time-Based Release Versioning

[Volker Simonis]

Thanks for the quick answer!

No more objections from me. Writing "\u00020LTS" instead of " LTS" may
indeed help - I've missed that space character. Or you could just put
in a comment like "(notice the space at the beginning of the expanded
string)".

So let's try to bring this into Java 10 then.

Regards,
Volker


On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 4:59 PM,  <mark.reinhold at oracle.com> wrote:
> 2017/12/1 3:11:18 -0800, volker.simonis at gmail.com:
>> thanks for publishing the draft. Overall it looks good!
>>
>> I have just a few comment :)
>>
>> 1. Is this JEP (i.e. the new version scheme) intended to be targeted
>> for Java 10?
>
> It's intended to be targeted when it's ready, just like any other JEP.
> It's obviously desirable to have it in 10, but if it doesn't make it
> then it'll be in 11.
>
>> I would appreciate to have it in ten but aren't we already quite late?
>> This is specification relevant (i.e. has to go into JSR 383) because
>> it changes java.lang.Runtime.Version and various standard system
>> properties which refer to it. JSR 383 has to be renamed from "Java SE
>> 18.3 Platform JSR" to "Java SE 10 Platform JSR" afterwards, right?
>
> That should be done anyway, regardless of whether this JEP makes it into
> JDK 10.  If we change nothing in JDK 10, as it stands today, then the
> JDK 10 GA release will identify itself as 10, not 18.3.
>
>> 2. In the example output there a space between the date and LTS when
>> running java --version:
>>
>> $ java --version
>> openjdk 11 2018-09-20 LTS
>>
>> But in the formal definition of the "--version" output there is no space:
>>
>> $ java --version
>> openjdk ${java.version} ${java.version.date}${LTS}
>>
>> I suppose the example output is correct here and there should be a
>> space between ${java.version.date} and ${LTS} in the formal
>> definition, right?
>
> The JEP defines ${LTS} to expand to " LTS".  (I put a non-breaking space
> after the opening double quote to try to make that clear, but to be even
> clearer I could instead write "\u00020LTS".)
>
>> 3. The same applies to the space between
>> ${java.runtime.name}/${java.vm.name} and ${JVV}
>
> Same answer.
>
>> 4. Finally, why are the outputs of "-version" and "--version" slightly
>> different? Is this to retain backwards compatibility with the former
>> "-version" output? But then why can't "--version" use the exact same
>> format? Sorry if this has been discussed before. It is obviously not a
>> crucial factor but I just found it confusing when looking at it.
>
> When we introduced `--version`, `--show-version`, and `--full-version`
> in JDK 9 we took the opportunity to clean up and simplify the output.
>
> - Mark