Good point. We should touch on this in the
meeting today, and I’ll take it as an action item to update the model
based on that.
Thanks,
Jim
____________________
Jim Ruehlin, IBM
Rational
RUP Content
Developer
Eclipse Process
Framework (EPF) Committer
email:
jruehlin@xxxxxxxxxx
phone:
760.505.3232
fax:
949.369.0720
From:
epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of "Nate Oster"
<noster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006
7:05 AM
To: "Eclipse Process
Framework Project Developers List" <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [epf-dev] UML
Diagrams of OpenUP Refactoring
Jim,
Reviewing the Washington D.C. face-to-face
minutes, it looks like the consensus was to separate the test-related tasks
between Requirements and Development. I’m very supportive of this
perspective. I think it makes sense to keep the Create_Test_Case task
under Requirements to underscore that the tests further define the intent of the product.
The 060821 OpenUP To-Be Structure places
all the Test tasks under Development, including Create Test Case. Is this
intentional?
Thanks,
Nate
From:
epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Ruehlin
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 6:38
PM
To: epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [epf-dev] UML Diagrams of
OpenUP Refactoring
I created some UML diagrams of what the internal OpenUP
structure might look like, and attached the document to the Bugzilla entry (https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=152354).
This might be helpful at Tuesday’s OpenUP refactoring meeting.
- Jim
____________________
Jim Ruehlin, IBM Rational
RUP Content Developer
Eclipse Process Framework (EPF) Committer
email: jruehlin@xxxxxxxxxx
phone: 760.505.3232
fax: 949.369.0720
_______________________________________________