[Gluster-devel] Post mortem of features that didn't make it to 3.9.0

Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay sankarshan.mukhopadhyay at gmail.com
Wed Sep 7 00:37:22 UTC 2016

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 5:10 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri
<pkarampu at redhat.com> wrote:

>      Do you think it makes sense to do post-mortem of features that didn't
> make it to 3.9.0? We have some features that missed deadlines twice as well,
> i.e. planned for 3.8.0 and didn't make it and planned for 3.9.0 and didn't
> make it. So may be we are adding features to roadmap without thinking things
> through? Basically it leads to frustration in the community who are waiting
> for these components and they keep moving to next releases.

Doing a post-mortem to understand the pieces which went well (so that
we can continue doing them); which didn't go well (so that we can
learn from those) and which were impediments (so that we can address
the topics and remove them) is an useful exercise.

>     Please let me know your thoughts. Goal is to get better at planning and
> deliver the features as planned as much as possible. Native subdirectoy
> mounts is in same situation which I was supposed to deliver.
> I have the following questions we need to ask ourselves the following
> questions IMO:

Incident based post-mortems require a timeline. However, while the
need for that might be unnecessary here, the questions are perhaps too
specific. Also, it would be good to set up the expectation from the
exercise - what would all the inputs lead to?

> 1) Did we have approved design before we committed the feature upstream for
> 3.9?
> 2) Did we allocate time for execution of this feature upstream?
> 3) Was the execution derailed by any of the customer issues/important work
> in your organizatoin?
> 4) Did developers focus on something that is not of priority which could
> have derailed the feature's delivery?
> 5) Did others in the team suspect the developers are not focusing on things
> that are of priority but didn't communicate?
> 6) Were there any infra issues that delayed delivery of this
> feature(regression failures etc)?
> 7) Were there any big delays in reviews of patches?
> Do let us know if you think we should ask more questions here.
> --
> Aravinda & Pranith

sankarshan mukhopadhyay

More information about the Gluster-devel mailing list