Talden / Hyrum,
Thanks very much!
I have never heard of the term burndown and without labels, the graph
- while pretty - meant very little to me.
While I understand the definitions... I am still trying to work out
LOC / Churn.
it would seem that in our project (locally) we're never ever going to
reach a stable release!
Again thanks.
Gavin.
On 20/10/2009, at 13:51 , Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> On Oct 19, 2009, at 9:37 PM, Talden wrote:
>
>>> Because I have absolutely no problem with looking like a complete
>>> idiot...
>>>
>>> And I am sure I am not the only person..... I don't understand the
>>> image, sorry.
>>> Any chance of a quick explanation?
>>
>> Taking a punt as an outsider to the process...
>>
>> Blue == The estimated finish time based on the sum of estimated
>> effort
>> of all outstanding work items and the available resources.
>> Orange == A proportionately higher estimate EG x1.2 (taking 20%
>> longer)
>> Red == A proportionately lower estimate EG x0.8 (taking 20% less)
>> Black == Actual progress.
>>
>> The estimates help provide best and worst case estimates as the
>> evaluation of effort for each work item could be a little easier or a
>> little harder than it appears before work actually starts.
>>
>>
>> What the chart tells us is one or both of the following:
>>
>> * The work is proving easier than expected
>> * There are more resources so we're getting more done per day
>>
>> The chart provides some indication as to how progress is being made.
>> Don't be surprised if the rapid progress slows more towards the
>> estimation. The number of people contributing their time has
>> recently
>> been lowish and any fluctuations in availability could have a
>> significant effect on the rate of progress.
>>
>> That said... Well done guys, excellent work.
>>
>> Can anyone comment as to their feelings. Is the rate of progress due
>> to estimation issues (always hard) or because you've had a great
>> community response?
>
> The script that Mark is running is tools/dev/count-wc-ng.sh, a script
> I initially wrote to help us know where the instances of
> svn_wc_adm_access_t and svn_wc_entry_t are which still needed
> removal. It was never intended to be the complete gauge of wc-ng
> progress to completion, just one facet of it. Even when we get rid of
> all of those data structures, we'll still have a number of other items
> left to accomplish (the graph doesn't say anything about centralizing
> metadata or pristines, for instance).
>
> Oh, and we probably won't ever reach 0. For backward compat, there
> will probably linger a number of these datastructures in various
> places, though the fewer the better. I don't think either of these
> issues is any surprise to people, I just wanted to be explicit about
> it.
>
> If anything, this graph shows that we're making some progress in a
> quantifiable way. There may be other aspects of the progress that are
> measurable, we just haven't bothered scripting them yet. In answer to
> your question, I think the rate of progress is due to both a knowledge
> that the numbers are highly variable, and that additional resources
> from the community have been applied. We can always use more,
> though. :)
>
> -Hyrum
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2409210
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2409218
Received on 2009-10-20 05:01:00 CEST