Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

What do you want to know?

Culturally, I think it's important to notice that VS is really a bunch of smaller teams put together, and not all of them have the same development strategies or systems.

So the biggest motivator here seemed to be a few pioneering teams who thought they had a better way to develop software, and had support from leadership.

So the pioneering teams pushed forward and started to put up measurable results. I think after that culture is bound to follow.




I'd most like to know how the developers reacted -- to losing offices, to speeding up dev cycles, to changing up testing. Presumably some of them were supportive, some of them were against it, but what were their reasons, and how did they react to the change?

I think it's more likely that the early adopter teams had some measurable result, and then management pushed the change through to other teams. So how did those teams react?

The article just paints a very optimistic picture. Something as big as VS, there's a lot of stuff to actually change when you go about changing things. I feel like there's just more to this story.


I'm curious if there were any structural changes to the product which needed to be made to support a more agile workflow. For example when I was there, just the branching and RI schedules were massive taxes on everyone. Also there were periods of insane 'gates' to code changes to get something committed- what has been done to allow less ship room and more code changes?

Edit: I left Microsoft to escape the VS ship schedule, I have not heard of significant changes from the co-workers I keep in touch with.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: