Introducing time wasters

Mario Torre neugens.limasoftware at
Thu Sep 20 12:22:58 UTC 2018

Doesn't seem a joke, since the label is there.

I can understand the frustration of having such bugs, but I wonder if
it shouldn't be just the priority of the bug raised rather than a new

Additionally, I take it the only benefit is to indicate that a bug
sucks engineering time of engineers not working on the bug but
affected by it. I wonder if the problem then is that engineers that
find the bug don't fix it ;) at least, that's what I would do.

Il giorno gio 20 set 2018 alle ore 14:18 Sean Mullan
<sean.mullan at> ha scritto:
> On 9/20/18 8:15 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Sean Mullan:
> >
> >> I read it as a joke. I did double-check the calendar and it's not
> >> April 1 yet.
> >
> > Is it a joke?
> I have no idea but it was specifically this part that led me to believe
> it may be a joke:
>  > If you have a time waster assigned to you, please consider fixing it
> asap. If you chose to not work on the issue, you should at least be
> aware that you are choosing to waste more engineering time and others
> will be affected by this choice.
> --Sean
> >
> > Avoiding wasting developer and QE time for manually checking logs is the
> > main reason why we fix and backport obscure test suite failures.  We are
> > usually constrained by QE resources for backports, but I think we now
> > have a mindset that the QE cost for such fixes is actually negative:
> > Sure, there is another bug to validate, but it will pay off pretty
> > quickly because you don't have to worry about the failing test ever
> > again.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Florian
> >

pgp key: PGP Key ID: 80F240CF
Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA  FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF

Java Champion - Blog: - Twitter: @neugens
Proud GNU Classpath developer:

Please, support open standards:

More information about the jdk-dev mailing list