Dogwood Retrospective
Date | Feb 16, 2016 |
|---|---|
Participants | @Ned Batchelder (Deactivated) @Joel Barciauskas (Deactivated) @Feanil Patel (Deactivated) @Alison Hodges (Unlicensed) |
Retrospective
What did we do well?
Django 1.8 upgrade automated
Building nightly boxes now
Interrupt-driven devops interaction was ok
One devops person for whole process was good
"Venn diagram of success"
Got good with vagrant and virtualbox snapshots
What should we have done better?
The Dogwood wiki page had details that Ned overlooked
Named release process page didn't have important details (like docs details)
Some projects didn't know what "being in Dogwood" meant.
Analytics
Otto
Pulling together release notes was difficult
Weekly release notes are aimed at a different audience
Some repos didn't release properly, so the Dogwood tag is on an old commit.
Didn't test all the configurations
Sandbox
12.04
Not clear which of the many installation methods need to be supported in a named release
Unclear about milestones getting to final (are we waiting on docs, devops, or eng at the moment?)
Needed to announce Dogwood rc cut!
It was announced in scrum-of-scrums
We never sent an email about it
readthedocs was very difficult
Tagging tool was broken at the last minute
Still working to make docs completely Cypress-clean
Lack of transparency about dogwood status
Doc process page was old and out of date
Test cycle is slow, upgrading to dogwood could take 90 min
Things We Know Now?
Being in Dogwood means "these repos work together", maybe not install, maybe not supported.