## Icehouse-2 velocity analysis

Looking at our recently-concluded *icehouse-2* development timeframe, we landed far less features and bugfixes than we wanted and expected. That created concerns about us losing our velocity, so I run a little analysis to confirm or deny that feeling.

### Velocity loss ?

If we compare *icehouse* to the *havana* cycle and focus on implemented blueprints (not the best metric), it is pretty obvious that *icehouse-2* was disappointing:

havana-1: 63

havana-2: 100

icehouse-1: 69

icehouse-2: 50

Using the first milestone as a baseline (growth of 10% expected), we should have been at 110 blueprints, so we are at 45% of the expected results. That said, looking at bugs gives a slightly different picture:

havana-1: 671

havana-2: 650

icehouse-1: 738

icehouse-2: 650

The first milestone baseline again gives a 10% expected growth, which means the target was 715 bugs… but we “only” fixed 650 bugs (like in *havana-2*). So on the bugfixes front, we are at 91% of the expected result.

### Comparing with grizzly

But *havana* is not really the cycle we should compare *icehouse* with. We should compare with another cycle where the end-of-year holidays hit during the -2 milestone development… so ** grizzly**. Let’s look at the number of commits (ignoring merges), for a number of projects that have been around since then. Here are the results for nova:

nova grizzly-1: 549 commits

nova grizzly-2: 465 commits

nova icehouse-1: 548 commits

nova icehouse-2: 282 commits

Again using the -1 milestone as a baseline for expected growth (here +0%), nova in *icehouse-2* ended up at 61% of the expected number of commits. The results are similar for neutron:

neutron grizzly-1: 155 commits

neutron grizzly-2: 128 commits

neutron icehouse-1: 203 commits

neutron icehouse-2: 110 commits

Considering the -1 milestones gives an expected growth in commits between *grizzly* and *icehouse* of +31%. *Icehouse-2* is at 66% of expected result. So not good but not catastrophic either. What about cinder ?

cinder grizzly-1: 86 commits

cinder grizzly-2: 54 commits

cinder icehouse-1: 175 commits

cinder icehouse-2: 119 commits

Now that’s interesting… Expected cinder growth between *grizzly* and *icehouse* is +103%. *Icehouse-2* scores at 108% of the expected, *grizzly*-based result.

keystone grizzly-1: 95 commits

keystone grizzly-2: 42 commits

keystone icehouse-1: 116 commits

keystone icehouse-2: 106 commits

That’s even more apparent with keystone, which had a quite disastrous *grizzly-2*: expected growth is +22%, Icehouse-2 is at 207% of the expected result. Same for Glance:

glance grizzly-1: 100 commits

glance grizzly-2: 38 commits

glance icehouse-1: 98 commits

glance icehouse-2: 89 commits

Here we expect 2% less commits, so based on *grizzly-2* we should have had 37 commits… *icehouse-2* here is at 240% !

In summary, while it is quite obvious that we delivered far less than we wanted to, due to the holidays and the recent gate issues, from a velocity perspective *icehouse-2* is far from being disastrous if you compare it to the last development cycle where the holidays happened at the same time in the cycle. Smaller projects in particular have handled that period significantly better than last year.

We just need to integrate the fact that the October – April cycle includes a holiday period that will reduce our velocity… and lower our expectations as a result.

Can you also dig up the number of reviews submitted (so also the ones that did not yet get approved and merged)? My feeling is that the incoming rate of reviews was the same or better, just fewer patches got approved. However I have no numbers to back this up.