Schedule slippage
Locked
 
|
Can we do something about the way schedule slippage is handled?
There is a lot of feature creep, and we are taking too small slippages. Based on yesterdays weather, 1.0 is not going to be released in May 2009. Issues were closed after on average 30 days, 48% within a week, but 10% took 85 days or longer. Of the new,started,accepted, fixed issues for 1.0 40% is 280 days old. Stephan _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
Hi Stephan,
Thanks for the stats. How did you produce them? You are right that we have feature creep (like closures, which were planned for 1.1) and many issues have been open for quite a while. One way to alleviate the problem is if more people help. There is work for everybody. Looking forward to your contributions ;) Adrian ___________________ http://www.adrian-lienhard.ch/ On Apr 8, 2009, at 14:13 , [hidden email] wrote: > Can we do something about the way schedule slippage is handled? > There is a lot of feature creep, and we are taking too small > slippages. > > Based on yesterdays weather, 1.0 is not going to be released in May > 2009. > > Issues were closed after on average 30 days, > 48% within a week, but 10% took 85 days or longer. > Of the new,started,accepted, fixed issues for 1.0 40% is 280 days > old. > > Stephan > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
I would like to get involved in getting 1.0 shipped, but am not sure
where to start. Are there some guidelines available somewhere? On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 08:33, Adrian Lienhard <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi Stephan, > > Thanks for the stats. How did you produce them? > > You are right that we have feature creep (like closures, which were > planned for 1.1) and many issues have been open for quite a while. One > way to alleviate the problem is if more people help. There is work for > everybody. > > Looking forward to your contributions ;) > Adrian > ___________________ > http://www.adrian-lienhard.ch/ > > On Apr 8, 2009, at 14:13 , [hidden email] wrote: > >> Can we do something about the way schedule slippage is handled? >> There is a lot of feature creep, and we are taking too small >> slippages. >> >> Based on yesterdays weather, 1.0 is not going to be released in May >> 2009. >> >> Issues were closed after on average 30 days, >> 48% within a week, but 10% took 85 days or longer. >> Of the new,started,accepted, fixed issues for 1.0 40% is 280 days >> old. >> >> Stephan >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > -- -JT _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
Great!
First please sign the license agreement if not already done: http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/ListOfOkCommitters Second, have a look at open issues tagged for milestone 1.0: http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/list?can=2&q=milestone:1.0 Third, check out how to contribute changes: http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/HowToContribute And please don't hesitate to ask questions on the mailing list. Thanks, Adrian On Apr 8, 2009, at 14:58 , John Toohey wrote: > I would like to get involved in getting 1.0 shipped, but am not sure > where to start. Are there some guidelines available somewhere? > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 08:33, Adrian Lienhard <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Hi Stephan, >> >> Thanks for the stats. How did you produce them? >> >> You are right that we have feature creep (like closures, which were >> planned for 1.1) and many issues have been open for quite a while. >> One >> way to alleviate the problem is if more people help. There is work >> for >> everybody. >> >> Looking forward to your contributions ;) >> Adrian >> ___________________ >> http://www.adrian-lienhard.ch/ >> >> On Apr 8, 2009, at 14:13 , [hidden email] wrote: >> >>> Can we do something about the way schedule slippage is handled? >>> There is a lot of feature creep, and we are taking too small >>> slippages. >>> >>> Based on yesterdays weather, 1.0 is not going to be released in May >>> 2009. >>> >>> Issues were closed after on average 30 days, >>> 48% within a week, but 10% took 85 days or longer. >>> Of the new,started,accepted, fixed issues for 1.0 40% is 280 days >>> old. >>> >>> Stephan >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pharo-project mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> > > > > -- > -JT > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
In reply to this post by Stephan Eggermont-3
Adrian wrote:
> Thanks for the stats. How did you produce them? From the csv output of the issue tracker. I used an old Delphi hack and a calculator, but if you're interested in generating some kind of burn-down chart, I can do a Pharo version. (or a DabbleDB one, I guess) > One way to alleviate the problem is if more people help. There is > work for everybody. I know, but that's not likely to solve this problem. More people = more scope creep. The issue is that if Pharo is to be a professional development tool, the release schedule should be somewhat reliable. If we miss a milestone, just adding another month to the schedule isn't working very well. Stephan _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
In reply to this post by Stephan Eggermont-3
We know.
The problem is that we do not want to let code rot because we do not have the work load to deal with it. For closure the more we waited the more it becomes a problem and painful. We decided that we will include the event cleaning made by mike. After the large part is the MIT cleaning. Now please join and help fixing the pending points. > Can we do something about the way schedule slippage is handled? > There is a lot of feature creep, and we are taking too small > slippages. > > Based on yesterdays weather, 1.0 is not going to be released in May > 2009. > > Issues were closed after on average 30 days, > 48% within a week, but 10% took 85 days or longer. > Of the new,started,accepted, fixed issues for 1.0 40% is 280 days > old. > > Stephan > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
In reply to this post by Stephan Eggermont-3
On Apr 8, 2009, at 15:31 , [hidden email] wrote: > Adrian wrote: >> Thanks for the stats. How did you produce them? > > From the csv output of the issue tracker. I used an old Delphi hack > and a calculator, but if you're interested in generating some kind of > burn-down chart, I can do a Pharo version. (or a DabbleDB one, I > guess) Sure, that would be interesting to track our progress! > >> One way to alleviate the problem is if more people help. There is >> work for everybody. > > I know, but that's not likely to solve this problem. > More people = more scope creep. There's certainly a tendency for more feature creep, but as we control what makes it into a milestone, its not that just anybody can add new stuff. > The issue is that if Pharo is to be a professional development tool, > the release schedule should be somewhat reliable. If we miss a > milestone, > just adding another month to the schedule isn't working very well. I agree, there's room for improvement. One difficulty is that the available resources are hard to plan in advance as everybody is working on a voluntary basis. For example, I couldn't do much the last three weeks due to high priority work at my company, Marcus is moving, etc. Cheers, Adrian _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
Stef,
Feature creep is always a problem, at least for good projects - junk can always be released on a schedule :) Among many other items, you have tackled closures, which is a good thing. Given the choice, I would probably do underscores in 1.0 (they hit home pretty firmly). While 1.0 is "late," there are now monthly developer and web images, the VMs are easy to find, and the system is improving. As long as the system is getting better, (relatively) stable and functional images continue to be offered along the way, and the development schedule makes good sense (I think it does), exactly what you choose to call 1.0 is not of great importance. Bill -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Stéphane Ducasse Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 9:18 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Schedule slippage We know. The problem is that we do not want to let code rot because we do not have the work load to deal with it. For closure the more we waited the more it becomes a problem and painful. We decided that we will include the event cleaning made by mike. After the large part is the MIT cleaning. Now please join and help fixing the pending points. > Can we do something about the way schedule slippage is handled? > There is a lot of feature creep, and we are taking too small > slippages. > > Based on yesterdays weather, 1.0 is not going to be released in May > 2009. > > Issues were closed after on average 30 days, 48% within a week, but > 10% took 85 days or longer. > Of the new,started,accepted, fixed issues for 1.0 40% is 280 days > old. > > Stephan > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
«
Return to Pharo Smalltalk Developers
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |