Skip to main content

Scrumming the night away

Today I decided to do a small experiment.

I was scribbling up a tiny todo-list when I thought "Hey, why don't I do some rough estimation on how long these things will take?". This is what the list looked like at first (at 18:00):
  • Short bike trip - done at 18:30
  • Do some planning for Objectware-uni (training for the new folks) - done at 19:00
  • Fiddle with personal bank-stuff, bills, etc - done at 19:30
  • Write this blog entry - done at 20:00
  • Do some maintenance programming for a customer - done at 22:00
So off I went on my little bike trip, trying out those new bike-shoes that click on to the pedals (did I mention that I cycle to work and I think everybody should do the same?). Naturally, I bumped into my neighbour that I had to help out with moving a fence, and neighbour-chat with for a while. By the time I got back it was 19:20.

Darn. So I had to re-arrange my estimate:
  • Bike and neighbour - done at 19:20
  • Objectware-uni - done at 19:30 (would have to be quick!)
  • Bank business - 20:00
  • Blog - 20:30
  • Programming - 22:00 (1/2 hour less than originally estimated)
On I went to wiki down the uni-plans. Was I quick about it? No. It is very hard to rush stuff that involves thinking. In fact I was so enticed with the state of the wiki that I blew off half-an-hour cleaning and moving stuff around on the wiki. By the end, the time was 20:00. Re-estimating:
  • Bike and neighbour - 19:20
  • Objectware-uni - done at 19:30
  • Wiki-stuff - 20:00
  • Bank - 20:30
  • Blog - 21:00
  • Programming - 22:00 (1 hour less than originally estimated)
[In the moment of writing, it is 21:30, the deadline for my latest blog estimate, so I will have to hurry up now.]

The bank stuff went pretty quick (10 minutes). But then I felt hungry. I eat extremely slow, and I eat a lot (much to the annoyence of fellow lunchers and diners). I made dinner, ate (while reading TheServerSide discussions) and was ready to move on at 21:00.

New estimate:

  • Bike and neighbour - 19:20
  • Objectware-uni - done at 19:30
  • Wiki-stuff - 20:00
  • Bank - 20:30
  • Dinner - 21:00
  • Blog - 21:30
  • Programming - 22:00 (1,5 hours less than originally estimated)
And now my time for blogging is up. Spending a half hour programming doesn't seem very worthwhile, so I'll rather spend the rest of the evening relaxing and planning tomorrows bike-trip to work (lotsa logistics involved there).

Conclusions:
  • Keeping a plan like that made me work more efficiently
  • I quickly discovered things I wouldn't have time for
  • I always discover new tasks I'll have to squeeze into the program
  • I'm easily distracted by these new tasks (will have to work on that)
  • Food takes time and must be planned for (will have to work on that too)
  • Your plan will continously be disturbed by people who want to chat on MSN/IM
Overall, the best thing about Scrum is that it makes you more aware of what you and your team is doing, and what steps can be taken to improve your development process. The next best thing is that it allows you to break estimates and openly admit it without anyone yelling "Sue these guys!"..
Labels:

Comments

  1. Jon29/6/07 09:06

    You are as crazy and hard working as I know you to be.
    If anyone would put scrum into his personal space it would be you!
    Love your little experiments.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Git-SVN Mirror without the annoying update-ref

This post is part of  a series on Git and Subversion . To see all the related posts, screencasts and other resources, please  click here .  So no sooner than I had done my git-svn presentation at JavaZone , I got word of a slightly different Git-SVN mirror setup that makes it a bit easier to work with: In short, my old recipe includes an annoying git update-ref step to keep the git-svn remote reference up to date with the central bare git repo. This new recipe avoids this, so we can simply use git svn dcommit   directly. So, longer version, with the details. My original recipe is laid out in five steps: Clone a fresh Git repo from Subversion. This will be our  fetching repo. Set up a  bare repo. Configure pushing from the fetching repo to bare repo In the shoes of a developer, clone the repo Set up an SVN remote in the developer's repo In the new approach, we redefine those last two steps: (See the original post for how to do the fir...
17 comments
Read more

Git Stash Blooper (Could not restore untracked files from stash)

The other day I accidentally did a git stash -a , which means it stashes *everything*, including ignored output files (target, build, classes, etc). Ooooops.. What I meant to do was git stash -u , meaning stash modifications plus untracked new files. Anyhows, I ended up with a big fat stash I couldn't get back out. Each time I tried, I got something like this: .../target/temp/dozer.jar already exists, no checkout .../target/temp/core.jar already exists, no checkout .../target/temp/joda-time.jar already exists, no checkout .../target/foo.war already exists, no checkout Could not restore untracked files from stash No matter how I tried checking out different revisions (like the one where I actually made the stash), or using --force, I got the same error. Now these were one of those "keep cool for a second, there's a git way to fix this"situation. I figured: A stash is basically a commit. If we look at my recent commits using   git log --graph --...
12 comments
Read more

Git tools for keeping patches on top of moving upstreams

At work, we maintain patches for some pretty large open source repositories that regularly release new versions, forcing us to update our patches to match. So far, we've been using basic Git operations to transplant our modifications from one major version of the upstream to the next. Every time we make such a transplant, we simply squash together the modifications we made in the previous version, and land it as one big commit into the next version. Those who are used to very stringent keeping of Git history may wrinkle their nose at this, but it is a pragmatic choice. Maintaining modifications on top of the rapidly changing upstream is a lot of work, and so far we haven't had the opportunity to figure out a more clever way to do it. Nor have we really suffered any consequences of not having an easy to read history of our modifications - it's a relatively small amount of patches, after all. With a recent boost in team size, we may have that opportunity. Also the need for be...
1 comment
Read more

Open source CMS evaluations

I have now seen three more or less serious open source CMS reviews. First guy to hit the field was Matt Raible ( 1 2 3 4 ), ending up with Drupal , Joomla , Magnolia , OpenCms and MeshCMS being runner-ups. Then there is OpenAdvantage that tries out a handful ( Drupal , Exponent CMS , Lenya , Mambo , and Silva ), including Plone which they use for their own site (funny/annoying that the entire site has no RSS-feeds, nor is it possible to comment on the articles), following Matt's approach by exluding many CMS that seem not to fit the criteria. It is somewhat strange that OpenAdvantage cuts away Magnolia because it "Requires J2EE server; difficult to install and configure; more of a framework than CMS", and proceed to include Apache Lenya in the full evaluation. Magnolia does not require a J2EE server. It runs on Tomcat just like Lenya does (maybe it's an idea to bundle Magnolia with Jetty to make it seem more lightweight). I'm still sure that OpenAdvant...
6 comments
Read more

Git-SVN mirror product: SubGit

Just a quick mention for you people who can't be bothered with my somewhat intricate Git-SVN mirror setup , there now is a now is a solution packed into a product: SubGit . I tried it out on a little local SVN repo recently, and it worked just fine. It delivered pretty much perfect two-way syncing/bi-directional mirror (which I've earlier deemed to be very impractical with git-svn ). The bad parts are: It's new (use at your own risk, in other words: DO NOT install it in your main-line subversion repo used by a 100 devs). It's closed source, so you're at the mercy of the SubGit devs for fixing any feature that you need in your special repository.  It requires instrumentation on the Subversion repository installation. If the repository is beyond your control (hosted externally, or by some separate department), you're stuck with my old setup . The good parts: Super-sweet functionality! I mean, bi-directional Git/SVN is highly sought after. Seems to...
2 comments
Read more