Recent searches
Search options
There are a lot of agile software practices that make a lot of sense, but I'm not a fan of the idea of a two-week "sprint".
I end up having a dozen features half-done, because each had to be ready by the end of the "sprint". I'd much rather spend three weeks each on eight of them, and have the other four dropped entirely (or handed over to someone else).
This isn't just a quality vs. quantity trade-off, because a well-done feature saves time spent on future related features.
@jzillw bring it up in a retro where you should discuss if processes, including scrum events, are helpful and, if not, how they can be improved to actually be helpful. maybe the sprint is really too short. or there are too many items in it. or scoping/estimation could be improved. ideally teams should discuss this regularly
@kwramm I'm not talking about a specific project. I've been in a few dozen projects, and two-week sprints have never done any of them any good. They just stress people out.
@jzillw oh, same here. but I also experienced scrum where we made it work. Although it wasn't your typical waterfall game-dev scrum with 30+ people teams (that's scrum in name only). key is that you have leaders who can make scrum work for you. sprints can and should be longer if it helps the team