Version-string schemes for the Java SE Platform and the JDK

Andrew Haley aph at
Wed Oct 25 12:22:39 UTC 2017

On 25/10/17 13:04, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 25/10/17 12:45, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>> or someone else were to publicly say that they will support every 6
>> monthly release for a 5 year period, then the BETA scheme doesn't
>> work. But IMO, the community would be better served by a widely
>> agreed LTS release every 2 to 3 years, with BETA releases in between
>> for advanced users.
> That may well be how it turns out, but we should not attempt to
> enforce that in the numbering scheme.  For example, some organizations
> might well choose to take a six-month update which doesn't break
> anything but has some performance improvements and merge that into
> their LTS release.  Thinking of the six-month releases as Betas
> doesn't help.

Up to now, somebody who decides to work on OpenJDK as an undergraduate
project might complete their PhD before their OpenJDK work sees the
light of day.  That is an intolerable situation.  If we treat the
six-monthly updates as merely Betas then we're in just as bad a
position as we were before.

If only LTS releases count as true releases then we will not have
advanced the situation by one iota.

Andrew Haley
Java Platform Lead Engineer
Red Hat UK Ltd. <>
EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671

More information about the jdk-dev mailing list