christoph.langer at sap.com
Tue Feb 26 21:16:53 UTC 2019
I agree, openjdk8u212 would be the more appropriate tag, given that we said we won't do an 8u211 in openjdk.
Maybe we should request an openjdk8u212 version from ops and change hgupdater again for both, jdk8u-dev and jdk8u. As I have "fixed" all the openjdk8u issues to be "openjdk8u211" today, I could do that again for 8u212
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jdk8u-dev <jdk8u-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net> On Behalf Of Gil
> Sent: Dienstag, 26. Februar 2019 20:22
> To: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com>
> Cc: jdk8u-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: openjdk8u211 tag
> Given the proposed process for the 8u quarterly releases going forward, I
> think that 8u212 would we the proper
> tag for the actual April release under such a process. [See separate discussion
> under "Numbering of updates in
> future 8u quarterly releases" (e.g.
> where we seem to have a quiet consensus that using the 8uXX2 numbers is
> the least-bad choice for now]
> I guess we could have two tags (8u211 and 8u212) to distinguish the
> presumably security-related stuff from other
> things as has been done traditionally, and just assume that everything tagged
> 8u211 is also included in the 8u212
> Or just one for both, which should probably be 8u212.
> Which will be more confusing?
> > On Feb 26, 2019, at 10:48 AM, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> wrote:
> > Comments?
> > --
> > Andrew Haley
> > Java Platform Lead Engineer
> > Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com>
> > EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671
> > <openjdk8u211 tag.eml>
> > Begin forwarded message:
> > From: "Hohensee, Paul" <hohensee at amazon.com>
> > Subject: openjdk8u211 tag
> > Date: February 26, 2019 at 10:17:51 AM PST
> > To: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com>
> > Noticed it replacing the openjdk8u tag. I thought there wasn’t going to be
> an OpenJDK 8u211, only a u212?
> > Paul
More information about the jdk8u-dev