Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Then, to clarify, I almost never see story points assigned for refactoring existing code. Completion of story points is generally the metric of success in the absence of more valid metrics. That measure of success applies to the scrum master that moves the project forward and the developer assigned to perform the work.

> Although there are places for some scheduled refactoring efforts, I prefer to encourage refactoring as an opportunistic activity, done whenever and wherever code needs to cleaned up - by whoever.

That is how I personally view refactoring as well. Its like a necessary sanitation ritual to keep things tidy like doing the laundry or the dishes but far more rewarding knowing that the change is more than mere maintenance, an improvement that simplifies things. Refactoring shouldn't require a scheduled event, but its the quantity of scheduled events that is visible and reinforced by the system.



You're describing another sad disease. Or two, really.

1. Story points are only intended as a prognosis tool. If we produce 14p/week on average, we'll probably work through this 80p block in 5-7 weeks.

That's it.

When you start using it to evaluate teams or individuals, Goodhart's law sets in, and it all turns to garbage.

2. The reason you don't count refactoring or bug fixes as points is that they don't add user value. If you spend all your time fixing bugs you created earlier, you are not being productive to the customer. It's easy to get caught up in polishing your toys instead of delivering things the customer is paying for.

Though what's often unstated/forgotten ignored, is that refactoring and leaving the code in at least as good a shape as you found it, is an integral part of what calling a story "done" should mean.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law




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

Search: