Hi Teyo, On 29/10/10 00:39, Teyo Tyree wrote: > Like to note a few things about our development shift that we > unfortunately did not communicate effectively in our initial email. > We are iterating on our internal development process in order to more > rapidly deliver complete features across our projects. In order to be > as transparent as possible and to provide the community with enough > context to understand our desire to shift the way we send patches to > the list, I'll summarize our new process. None of these processes are > set in stone. We plan to improve and refine our internal processes > each week. > > We have moved to short iteration cycles that deliver real value. (We > are testing one week iterations at the moment.) > We have moved predominantly to pair programming. (We are testing to > determine if pair programming obviates the need for code review.) > We have moved away from a merge master to CI internally. We are > merging into next. ( We are testing to determine if getting code > merged sooner rather than later increases our velocity/quality. This > is why we aren't sending patches to the dev list for review. We > aren't reviewing our code outside of pairing in this iteration.) > We have moved to a single developer that will merge community patches, > adhoc work, firefighter. This is a rotation. ( Markus is first up. We > are testing Markus! )
And... is Markus resilient? :) > The shift in our development process opens up questions internally > about how we review code publicly. The development community > unfortunately can't be onsite in our offices with us, though there is > an open invitation. Loved having R.I. and Peter here recently. We > are attempting to develop a process internally that takes advantage of > our proximity without alienating you all. There is a balance and we > intend to openly iterate until we find that balance. I am sure > Turnbull is going to accuse me of using weasel words. > > Our iterations end on Tuesday afternoon. We will be sending out a > summary including links to all the merged topic branches to the list > on Wednesday. We will also provide some context about what we > accomplished in the iteration. The whole process is a work in > progress and we expect for it to take several iterations to get it > "right". I would like for you guys to reserve judgement about the new > communication process until we provide the first digest. These are > going to occur often enough that we don't expect to them to be large > documents, but they will be cross project. It's good you are starting on this model. I think this is a good move. > Would you all be interested knowing what we are working on each week? I think that a short summary of your iteration theme would be really nice. > Our iterations will tend to have a theme. This week we are working on > building out an inventory service. A high level design document is > available in Redmine: > > http://projects.puppetlabs.com/projects/1/wiki/InventoryServiceArchitecture > > We have also thought about the following measures to keep you all > involved: > > Broadcast our daily stand-ups... IRC/Mailing-list > Provide weekly snapshots of our work plan for each iteration. > Build a Markus effigy with a built in web-cam, point him at our > planning board, and broadcast the stream. (Markus is working remotely > at the moment.) > > Your thoughts are, as always, welcomed. We have a lot to learn. As I was saying earlier, I'll certainly miss the discussions about the submitted patch. But on another hand I understand the devs can't spend much of their time discussing here. All the patch reviewing takes quite some time. I'll be a little bit frustrated to not see the various iterations a patch can take :) Still I'll see the patches too late for (external) comments or -1 or whatever (yes I know, I don't think I ever -1 any official patch :). I fully understand why (being also an XP practitionner at work, this model doesn't really support external-to-the-team scrutiny). I suppose once the iteration is done and patches merged in next, raising a red flag on some changes will be too late, is that right (at least for this iteration)? Thanks, -- Brice Figureau My Blog: http://www.masterzen.fr/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
