Post mortem of features that didn't make it to 3.9.0

[Pranith Kumar Karampuri <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx>]

hi,

     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.

    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:
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

_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel