...
A lot of effort has been invested in the sprint by all participants, some of them even started working on preparation tasks before the sprint. A lot of code contributions were produced, although we don’t have a complete feature at the moment, this is a big step towards that. We had quite good communication, enough meetings have been organized, slack has been used for some discussion as well. Reviewing of PRs has been effective, always completed in some reasonable time, at least two reviewers participated in the reviewing of a PR. We didn’t have so many blocking tasks for a long period of time.
What didn’t go well
We have created a sprint main branch and staging branch, although we used only staging. Anyway, we would continue with this standard practice in the future for any case. However, we shouldn’t use month for naming branches (https://wiki.lyrasis.org/display/VIVO/Branching+strategy+for+a+sprint+using+GitHub), because some branches might continue to exist for more than one sprint. More balance in reviewing PR is needed, we should encourage non-committers to participate in reviewing. We haven’t been consistent with submitting daily stand-up reports at slack channel. More structured wiki documentation should be created in the preparation of the sprint, to encourage participants to contribute there immediately after completing some tasks. The basic idea of dynamic action has been tested with quite simple and non-real examples of dynamic actions.
...