Re: [epf-dev] Multiple Capability Patterns -- some unpublished?

[Per Kroll <pkroll@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree that would have value. We could
label them as sample variations of OpenUP we have seen an interest in.

We have one default view of what type
of development we want to promote, but we realize that many would like
to put their own twise. So, we provide some examples of such variations...

Cheers

Per Kroll
STSM, Manager Methods: RUP / RMC
Project Lead: Eclipse Process Framework
Rational Software, IBM Corp
(M) 408-219-2963

Ricardo Balduino/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS
Sent by: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

06/29/2007 11:37 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Subject	Re: [epf-dev] Multiple Capability Patterns -- some unpublished?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Subject	[epf-dev] Multiple Capability Patterns -- some unpublished?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
_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev