Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [epf-dev] Multiple Capability Patterns -- some unpublished?


I believe that having a few extra capability patterns that show a couple of different ways of using OpenUP is fine. What we don't want to have is 100 more patterns to create 200 different variations :-)
We want to keep OpenUP minimal, and it is fine if you can slightly vary it, without major customization, as it comes out-of-the-box.
We can provide 1 or 2 canned configurations that allow the process to be easily published with those variations you mentioned below. Ideally, no matter what configuration you publish, the published process is called OpenUP.

Does it make sense? Are we aiming that for this release or next?

Ricardo Balduino
IBM Rational Software (www.ibm.com/rational)
Eclipse Process Framework (www.eclipse.org/epf)



"Brian Lyons" <blyons@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

06/29/2007 06:14 AM

Please respond to
Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List        <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To
"Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List" <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
[epf-dev] Multiple Capability Patterns -- some unpublished?





hiho,
 
We want OpenUP to be an enactable process, but also it should be a good example of usage of the Eclipse Process Framework.
 
We have had some discussion about whether or not there is development in Inception.  The discussion has led us to not include development as the “default” (i.e. the only supplied Inception iteration template) while having some verbiage around possibly including additional activities for development.
 
The original 0.9 release didn’t enforce Test-driven development.  In discussions we noted that we wanted to push TDD because it is a very valuable technique.  The current Develop Solution activity is strictly TDD. But TDD is something that some organizations are not applying.
 
What do people think about including some additional capability patterns in the OpenUP repository that would not be in the default published OpenUP process?  This gives us a stronger message of “This is the default, but it is considered ‘valid’ to…” for some of these expected variations.  And this might make the repository a stronger example of appropriate usages of EPF (the repository has information and some amount of that is assembled into a published process).
 
                                  ------------ b_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev


Back to the top