Introducing time wasters

Andrew Dinn adinn at
Mon Sep 24 10:51:44 UTC 2018

On 22/09/18 14:11, Gustavo Romero wrote:
> On 09/22/2018 08:57 AM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
>> Maybe we should use (and pay attention to) the votes more actively?
> I really think that having a counter instead of a static label is the best
> way to convey the idea we are discussing here, so +1.
> ...maybe modify "Votes:" counter name or add another named like Mark and
> others suggested for the label name, as "affects-maintainers"
> (+1 for that BTW). But use a counter and not a static label either way.
Oh, boy, I knew this would turn into a bikeshed discussion :-)

Unfortunately, by relocating this tag into the realm of the beauty
contest, I think this idea misses the point. In two ways:

In almost all cases canvassing of opinions will not not needed to
determine that a defect is going to cause developers pain.

Furthermore, shifting the burden of arriving at such judgement to
developers and, in particular, making it's validity dependent on how
many developers actually 1) come across and 2) report the pain they are
exposed to is likely to make this remedy a very unreliable cure for the
original problem -- the desired cure being simply to flag urgency for
whoever needs to ensure a problem gets fixed rather than create work for
everyone else.

I suggest someone very quickly makes an /executive decision/ to: pick an
ok name from the many extant suggestions and mandate its use,
irrespective of any subsequently expressed preferences. Honestly, silver
was a a bad idea but grey will be fine.

Jesper? I think the ball is in your court!


Andrew Dinn
Senior Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat UK Ltd
Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903
Directors: Michael Cunningham, Michael ("Mike") O'Neill, Eric Shander

More information about the jdk-dev mailing list