Re: [epf-dev] Multiple Capability Patterns -- some unpublished?

[Ricardo Balduino <balduino@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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Subject	[epf-dev] Multiple Capability Patterns -- some unpublished?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