Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update definition of J9JDK_EXT_VERSION #532

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 9, 2021

Conversation

keithc-ca
Copy link
Member

For releases, the value is hard-coded, otherwise it is redefined on the following line.

@pshipton
Copy link
Member

I'm going to defer merging this until the 0.29 release is done.

Signed-off-by: Keith W. Campbell <keithc@ca.ibm.com>
@keithc-ca keithc-ca changed the title Remove unused definition of J9JDK_EXT_VERSION Update definition of J9JDK_EXT_VERSION Nov 9, 2021
@keithc-ca
Copy link
Member Author

Updated as discussed: ibmruntimes/openj9-openjdk-jdk17#31 (review).

@pshipton pshipton merged commit 9ba2987 into ibmruntimes:openj9 Nov 9, 2021
@keithc-ca keithc-ca deleted the version branch November 9, 2021 17:11
pshipton added a commit to pshipton/openj9-openjdk-jdk8 that referenced this pull request Aug 17, 2022
ibmruntimes#532 modified the
J9JDK_EXT_VERSION to use JDK_UPDATE_VERSION instead of JDK_MOD_VERSION,
and COOKED_BUILD_NUMBER instead of JDK_FIX_VERSION. This obsoleted
JDK_MOD_VERSION which can be removed. Using COOKED_BUILD_NUMBER in the
J9JDK_EXT_VERSION is wrong, this is the IBM version for the extensions.
The J9JDK_EXT_VERSION should end with .0 typically, and be modified any
time there is a new extensions release for the same JDK_UPDATE_VERSION.

Signed-off-by: Peter Shipton <Peter_Shipton@ca.ibm.com>
pshipton added a commit to pshipton/openj9-openjdk-jdk8 that referenced this pull request Aug 17, 2022
ibmruntimes#532 modified the
J9JDK_EXT_VERSION to use JDK_UPDATE_VERSION instead of JDK_MOD_VERSION,
and COOKED_BUILD_NUMBER instead of JDK_FIX_VERSION. This obsoleted
JDK_MOD_VERSION which can be removed. Using COOKED_BUILD_NUMBER in the
J9JDK_EXT_VERSION is wrong, this is the IBM version for the extensions.
The J9JDK_EXT_VERSION should end with .0 typically, and be modified any
time there is a new extensions release for the same JDK_UPDATE_VERSION.

Signed-off-by: Peter Shipton <Peter_Shipton@ca.ibm.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants