Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [epf-dev] Some proposed agenda items for February F2F

I would add:
1. Resolve the relationship between Test , acceptance tests within
Requirements, and developer tests within Implementation
2. Confirm the overall vision of OpenUP within the team.  I suspect that
we've strayed a bit.
3. Discuss status of all plug-in work (agile data techniques, agile
modeling, scrum, ....).

- Scott

On Sat, January 27, 2007 7:23 am, Ana Valente Pereira said:
> And also:
>
> * brainstorming the OpenUP lifecycle diagram ( 171152)
> <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=171152>
> * review what goes into OpenUP basic deployment ...(167904 and 140074)
> ... and where does it fit on the lifecycle
>
> Ana
>
> Jim Ruehlin wrote:
>
>>Hello all,
>>
>>
>>
>>I don't know if there's an agenda yet for the February EPF F2F, so here
>>are a few topic recommendations:
>>
>>
>>
>>*	Redefining the architectural approach in OpenUP
>>(https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=165258). We've been
>>having some small-group discussions about this and it would be useful to
>>report on progress so far. There are still issues to be resolved so this
>>may be a good opportunity for a breakout.
>>*	Redefining the relationship between design and implementation
>>(https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=168725). Brian and I have
>>had a couple of informal discussions but there's still a lot to do in
>>defining this. It may be useful to discuss the intent of this issue in
>>the main meeting, and have a breakout to make further progress. It may
>>also be useful to have a joint breakout with the architecture and
>>design/implementation groups to discuss interlocked issues.
>>*	Simplify the explanation and description of use cases
>>(https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=168275).  The problem is
>>that use cases require a learning curve that many developers,
>>particularly in small teams, are not willing to dedicate themselves to.
>>User stories try to address this issue, but they can be ambiguous, and
>>they can define solutions rather than requirements. Can we come up with
>>a simpler way of doing use cases, and what would be the cost of doing
>>so? Should we move to user stories instead, or leave things as is?
>>
>>
>>
>>-        Jim
>>
>>
>>
>>____________________
>>
>>Jim Ruehlin, IBM Rational
>>
>>RUP Content Developer
>>
>>Eclipse Process Framework (EPF) Committer www.eclipse.org/epf
>>
>>email:   jruehlin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>phone:  760.505.3232
>>
>>fax:      949.369.0720
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>epf-dev mailing list
>>epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> epf-dev mailing list
> epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
>


Practice Leader Agile Development, IBM Rational
http://www-306.ibm.com/software/rational/bios/ambler.html

Refactoring Databases (
http://www.ambysoft.com/books/refactoringDatabases.html ) is now
available.



Back to the top