Kris Kennaway wrote: > Ivan Voras wrote: >> Kris Kennaway wrote: >> >>> What do you expect is wrong with the 6.x jdk running under >>> compatibility? >> >> I don't expect it, I'm talking from personal experience (confirmed by >> occasional reports on mailing lists). > > Fine, so in your personal experience, what is the problem? "Just like > with ZFS", bug reports that do not contain sufficient details are useless. > > It's sort of tiresome to keep receiving these vague complaints wrapped > up in insinuations from someone with sufficient development experience > to do better.
You're right, sorry about that. The thing is that I sometimes get carried away and try to use new shiny things in production, where I can't spend downtime debugging problems that, in theory, shouldn't exist. That's why my reports are sometimes (though not always - I've sent a lot of tracebacks and offered many kernel core dumps for ZFS) are vague. I find that many of the problems I encountered are difficult to reproduce in controlled environment. Yes, ZFS was always tagged experimental, and strictly speaking I really shouldn't use java on 7.0 at all since there are no Sun-blessed binaries. Though I think that as an early adopter my reports at least showed future users what *not* to do :)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
