Conversation

Notices

1. musicman (musicman@nu.federati.net)'s status on Wednesday, 14-Oct-2020 16:33:43 EDT musicman
   So, um, are these referencing 14 and 15 or 1.4 and 1.5...
   
   <profiles>
   <profile>
   <id>jdk14</id>
   <activation>
   <jdk>1.4</jdk>
   </activation>
   <dependencies>
   <dependency>
   <groupId>bouncycastle</groupId>
   <artifactId>bcprov-jdk13</artifactId>
   <version>${bcprov.jdk13.version}</version>
   </dependency>
   </dependencies>
   </profile>
   
   <profile>
   <id>jdk15</id>
   <activation>
   <activeByDefault>true</activeByDefault>
   <jdk>1.5</jdk>
   </activation>
   <dependencies>
   <dependency>
   <groupId>bouncycastle</groupId>
   <artifactId>bcprov-jdk15</artifactId>
   <version>${bcprov.jdk15.version}</version>
   </dependency>
   </dependencies>
   </profile>
   1. lnxw48a1 (lnxw48a1@nu.federati.net)'s status on Thursday, 15-Oct-2020 23:15:35 EDT lnxw48a1

      in reply to
      @musicman For many of the 1.x numbers, Java x and 1.x are the same.
      
      This started because after v.1.2 was released, they retroactively decided it was “Java 2”. I think v1.8 is Java 8. I don’t know what they’ve done after that.
      1. musicman (musicman@nu.federati.net)'s status on Monday, 19-Oct-2020 17:49:59 EDT musicman

         in reply to
         right, but why would they be referencing Java 3? idk, the whole thing is weird.