RE: [epf-dev] Multiple Capability Patterns -- some unpublished?

[Jim Ruehlin <jruehlin@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Great idea. I agree with Ricardo that we want to keep the number of new
CPs small. We should also scope this tightly to assure we release
on-time at the end of July. 

 

- 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

 

________________________________

From: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ricardo Balduino/Cupertino/IBM
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 8:38 AM
To: Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List
Subject: Re: [epf-dev] Multiple Capability Patterns -- some unpublished?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[epf-dev] Multiple Capability Patterns -- some unpublished?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