The back-story. See Coping With Complexity. See https://github.com/cloud-custodian/cel-python for the code base.
Back around May 26, I created this branch. Today -- July 2 -- I've got the tests to pass.
BLUF (TL;DR)
I made mistakes. I spent a lot of time making a some significant mistakes. I spent \(\frac{3}{37} \approx \frac{1}{12}\) of the time cleaning it up.
Details
| Date | Day | Event |
|---|---|---|
| May 26 | 1 | Open the branch |
| June 21 | 26 | Uncover serious problem with the design |
| June 29 | 34 | Post about a better design |
| July 2 | 37 | All tests pass. |
In June I posted a a note about this mess on the June 29, reflecting 34 days of frustrating work. There are important
It took 4 days to clean up the mess. About \(\frac{1}{12}\) of the overall time.
YMMV, of course.
But. I think a \(12 : 1\) ratio for getting into trouble and refactoring to fix it is about right.
Next Steps
Celebrate!
Then update the tracking issue (https://github.com/cloud-custodian/cel-python/issues/100) for the project.
I think there are two outstanding issues; neither of them are devilishly complicated.
Sprint Planning
How many story points was this? (As if story points mean something.)
More importantly, imagine a team with 4-week sprints.
This was not done in the first sprint.
Now what?
- A hand-wringing sprint retrospective to ascertain (again) how difficult the future is to predict.
- A heart-felt sermon on team commitment nad the importance of meeting commitments.
- Followed by another round of acknowledgement that the future is remarkably hard to predict.
- A rambling rumination from an old developer (like me) on the importance of detailed design to establish the right number of story points.
- Followed by a good laugh. The didn't work for the waterfall approach. We rejected that as part of the Agile approach. It still won't work.