Skip to main content
Jump to: navigation, search

Platform UI/Retrospective/3.5

What worked well

  • I liked that we had no big surprises or dramas during the end game. -Boris
  • Cross-project collaboration worked really well. -Oleg
  • I think the new bug triage strategy was a great idea. -Eric
    • +1. -Remy

What didn't work well

  • Unfortunately, some of the performance regressions were discovered very late. We should pay more attention to this earlier in the cycle. -Boris
  • We need to reset degradation comments at the beginning of the release cycle. -Paul
  • We ought to rewrite the performance tests, to make them more relevant to end users, to make it easier for developers to diagnose problems, and to make them run faster. -Oleg
  • Additional requirements by Planning Council ("Capabilites" example) did not work so well, they need to be well defined. In this particular case, we would have liked that the 27 bugs for all projects get created after we have a clear understanding of what should be done. -Oleg
  • Some bugzilla reports or searches are restricted to Platform UI (as opposed to also Platform IDE). -Susan
  • We still have unexplained effects in some of the performance tests. (Garbage collection? Can we count the number of garbage collections?) -Eric

Ideas for improvement

  • I think we still have too many bugs that goes fixed without a unit test. This is not specific to the 3.5 cycle. I will admit that we have a severe "lack of resources" problem on UI. -Remy
  • We should look at our fingerprint tests and make sure we have user-relevant tests there. -Paul
  • It would be great to get our continuous integration machine (GIR) working again, or preferably, be able to run a partial build of only the Platform UI bits that can replace GIR. -Paul
  • Put more queries/report on the wiki page to reduce the chance of queries that are not quite right. -Boris

Back to the top