An impassioned plea on version numbers (original) (raw)
Ismael Juma mlists at juma.me.uk
Thu Sep 28 08:55:17 UTC 2017
- Previous message: An impassioned plea on version numbers
- Next message: An impassioned plea on version numbers
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
That's right:
$ java -version java version "9" Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 9+181) Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 9+181, mixed mode)
Ismael
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Sven Reimers <sven.reimers at gmail.com> wrote:
This format already changed for 9.
Sven Am 28.09.2017 08:43 schrieb "Peter Lawrey" <peter.lawrey at gmail.com>: > I am assuming a minimum of changes to the format of the current internal > Java version > > $ java -version > java version "1.8.0144" > Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0144-b01) > Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.144-b01, mixed mode) > > With a recent version of Java 8 update 144, being 1.8.0144 internally. > ᐧ > > On 27 September 2017 at 19:12, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> wrote: > > > On 27/09/17 16:31, Peter Lawrey wrote: > > > It's worth noting the version is likely to be > > > > > > 1.10.01 > > > 1.11.01 > > > > > > or > > > > > > 1.18.31 > > > 1.18.91 > > > 1.19.31 > > > > Why do you say that? > > > > -- > > Andrew Haley > > Java Platform Lead Engineer > > Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com> > > EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671 > > >
- Previous message: An impassioned plea on version numbers
- Next message: An impassioned plea on version numbers
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]