Posts by Gustavo Dutra

Dave Thomas wrote a blog post called “Agile is dead (Long live agility)“. In the blog post, he claims the use of “do Agile right” as a way to profit, whereas it should make people – developers specially – to deliver valuable software more effectively.

It had a huge impact in the community in a way that many other people came up to point out their opinions. Also, some good texts about the subject came up as Andrew Binstock’s “The Corruption of Agile” and Allen Hollub’s “The Agile Holocracy“. In reply to the last two articles, Uncle Bob wrote “The True Corruption of Agile“. These are the kind of movement that make the industry to evolve: to criticize the “state of the art” practices and ideas. And to better understand what’s going on, it is better to step back and look for what “Agile” is supposed to mean. Watching a talk by Martin Fowler and Neil Ford called “Explaining Agile” can help us to better understand it. I’ll try to tr;dl the talk by Martin and Neil, so we can follow along with the discussion.

Explaining Agile

Before the whole Agile idea had emerged, industry majority used to follow waterfall by using frameworks and methodologies that support its idea, such as ISO 12207 and CMMI. All of them established a strict set of practices that should be followed in order to be compliant. The practices became a process and each person would take an input and then transform it into an output which would be someone’s else input.

And so did the tools, they were designed to support the same process for every company. Everything should be automated in such way that development pipeline (requirements, design, development, test, maintenance) would work perfectly. The only team with autonomy to change the process was the process quality team.

A successful project in waterfall would be one where everything run as planned. All people did was following the plan and making an input into an output hoping to get the final product at the end of the project.

It was noticed that the plan needed to be changed often during the course of the development and the later changes were needed the more expensive they would be. Although there are certainly exceptions, it’s usually very hard to plan a project and not needing to change it.

It would be better if the plan period was shorter and, by making it shorter, one could adjust the plan between periods. In order to make a good plan, review and retrospective meetings came up, so it would be easier to spot problems and to solve them. And to do so, it is necessary to give the autonomy to the team to change its own process independently of its project or organization unit.

That’s why “Agile” came for. We would have iterations and after each one we would have a chance to change the course of the project, to change the way software is being developed and to change the whole plan, so that we would have an empirical process/practices and not a strict defined process.

Where the corruption is

All the discussions raised by the cited articles are being fired by the same reason: “agile” is being misused. People are creating strict practices and process and taking it as “the right way” of developing software, whereas they should consider the empirical knowledge that each project gives as feedback.

It is needed to adjust the process and practices in a way it makes sense and turn the software development easier to maintain and faster to deliver value. In order to accomplish that, you have to change things. Embrace the change was not supposed to embrace only the requirements change, but any change.

People has turned Agile into a set of strict practices, when it is a philosophy/culture of how to react to environment stimuli. The practices are the reflex of the reaction and, biologically speaking – don’t forget software is built by living beings -, people can react differently for the same stimulus. And in this thought is where people is corrupting the agile.

I’ll give a real example to try to make myself clearer. When you work on different projects with different clients, the cultural differences among the stakeholders are more evident. So, it is our job to make the project to succeed and the way of doing that is adjusting the process over the time and don’t be afraid of doing new things.

For instance, I worked in a project once that was following Scrum guidelines. At some point, the plannings were not taking even a full hour. The stories were well defined: PO and the Scrum Master already had prioritized them before the planning had began. We used to estimate them before the meeting and the only discussions raised during the planning were about making sure developers had understood PO’s needs.

Because of that, in some retrospective meeting we decided to merge Kanban with Scrum and have something hybrid. We would still estimate the stories so we could keep the predictability, but we did not had plannings anymore. Bugs and User Stories were prioritized in the proper column and the developer would assign himself to the most prioritized one. Plan changes were notified by Campfire. When a doubt about the US was raised, Scrum Master and the assigned developer would talk directly with the PO using Google Hangouts and/or Campfire. The changes were communicated to the others developers through Pull Requests.

We got autonomy to change things and it was very satisfying to see the results. Always remember those left-sided values from the agile manifesto and let it flow. Remember that the process cannot decide how you work, but the other way around. We had delivered with agility, even though we took the risk of going out of the box and not being tied to the conventional practices.

Finally, I want to thank everyone who is helping to push the community forward by raising discussions like that. As always, when discussing, be aware that we criticize the practices themselves, not people or companies. There is no such thing as “right” or “wrong” for subjects like this, there is what works and what works better for you. So, what other practices can we discuss about? Have you done any change which had a huge impact? Share with us on the comments below.

Hey, there! Here at Plataformatec we like to do project rotations. It means that every three months or so, developers can swap projects. It has lots of benefits like working with different people, getting out of the comfort zone, sharing skills and knowledge, and the best one: a new developer can spot problems that people working for a longer time in the project may not see, since they are used to it.

But, it comes at a cost. Each project has its own setup process and may slow down the development. We’re using Boxen from GitHub to solve this problem. It works very well and allows us to have a project environment quickly set up.

But recently we have run into a problem that Boxen couldn’t solve. We had a project which has multiple repositories and some of them are too large. It would take some time just to git clone their > 3GB size repos.

Our first thought was creating a tar file with gzip or lzma compression. The problem with it would be when extracting, since file ownership and permissions on it could be a problem just like symlinks. So, the solution was to git clone the smallest repos and git bundle the larger ones. Git bundle is shipped with git, but only a few people know about.

The workflow we have is simple. Someone with the repo already cloned and updated to the origin, type the following command:

$ git bundle create .bundle master

It will create a file called .bundle with a compressed version of the repository containing the master history. So, this file can be shared via a flash drive, AirDrop or netcat (using the internal network) among developers, and it will take way less time than cloning it.

Now that you have the file in hands, it requires two steps to work properly. The first one is extracting the bundle into a cloned repository. This can be achieved by:

$ git clone .bundle -b master

In case you want to clone into a different path other than in the current working directory, you can pass the path after the -b master option. As you can see, the repo is cloned from a bundle file just like it could be an URL or some bare git repo in your machine. That said, just take a look at your origin remote.

$ git remote show origin

* remote origin
Fetch URL: /path/to/.bundle
Push URL: /path/to/.bundle

It is pointing to the bundle filename, so every time you fetch or push, it will try to do so in this bundle file. To fix that, we go to the second step which is setting the proper remote URL.

$ git remote set-url origin

That’s it. You’re ready to go. If you have multiple repositories to share, you can create a script to automate the cloning and the url setting for the origin. You can share all the repos with this script, for faster and easier setups.


The Ruby language repository size is about 200MB. It is not big enough to require a bundle, but just as an example I guess it would be a nice fit.

The first step is cloning the repo:

$ time git clone
Cloning into 'ruby'...
remote: Finding bitmap roots...
remote: Reusing existing pack: 269821, done.
remote: Counting objects: 2813, done.
remote: Compressing objects: 100% (1403/1403), done.
remote: Total 272634 (delta 1707), reused 2213 (delta 1390)
Receiving objects: 100% (272634/272634), 136.77 MiB | 1.20 MiB/s, done.
Resolving deltas: 100% (210263/210263), done.
Checking connectivity... done
Checking out files: 100% (4187/4187), done.

real 4m51.501s
user 1m38.837s
sys 0m18.808s

As you can see, it takes almost five minutes to clone the full repository – the time may vary depending on your bandwidth. So, now we’re gonna create a bundle file and then clone a new repo from it:

$ cd ruby/
# Just a reminder, the main branch of ruby repo is not master, it's trunk.
$ git bundle create /tmp/ruby.bundle trunk

Now that we’ve created a bundle file and placed it in /tmp, we just need to clone it:

$ cd /tmp/
$ time git clone /tmp/ruby.bundle -b trunk ruby
Cloning into 'ruby'...
Receiving objects: 100% (206590/206590), 84.16 MiB | 22.43 MiB/s, done.
Resolving deltas: 100% (158583/158583), done.
Checking connectivity... done
Checking out files: 100% (4187/4187), done.

real 0m46.490s
user 1m9.339s
sys 0m10.021s

Cloning from a bundle file was much faster and has not taken a minute. Now, in order to pull and fetch changes, you need to set the remote URL:

$ git remote set-url origin

Enjoyed this post? Was it as useful for you as for us? Tell us your stories on the comments below! See you!

No último dia 19 de outubro de 2013, aconteceu em Porto Alegre, nas dependências da PUC-RS, o RS on Rails. Eu, João Britto e Lucas Mazza participamos do evento que conseguiu abranger palestras que falavam sobre a cultura e os hábitos do programador, importantes para o desenvolvimento pessoal; as de cunho técnico, compostas com bastante código, para desenvolvimento técnico; e também cases reais, que mostram como o mundo realmente é fora dos livros.

Alguns participantes do RS on Rails 2013. Foto por Gabriel Sobrinho

Gostaríamos de agradecer o convite e o cuidado da organização, que se preocupou desde a localização do hotel até em apresentar a cidade e seus costumes. Foi muito bom continuar o networking na Redenção e tomar um chimarrão com o pessoal após o evento.

Abaixo, seguem os talks que nós apresentamos no evento. Sinta-se à vontade para dar feedback nos comentários abaixo!

Contribuindo com Open Source: a teoria na prática – por Lucas Mazza

A palestra fala sobre como a cultura do Open Source influencia o nosso dia-a-dia,
pois Open Source não se resume a “programar de graça”, e sim, a um espírito maior de colaboratividade.

Um time, vários projetos – por Gustavo Dutra

Eu falei sobre colaboratividade entre todos da empresa. “Um time, vários projetos” trás um pouco da realidade da Plataformatec e várias dicas de como conseguir trazer o sentimento de um único time entre todos da empresa.

Ruby além dos trilhos – por João Britto

Já o João Britto mostrou alternativas ao “feijão com arroz” do Rails e do Ruby. Na “Ruby além dos trilhos”, ele apresentou vários questionamentos, todos regados de muito código para exemplificar as ideias.