Re: [epf-dev] EPF community post states that 'RUP for Small Projects' co

[Bruce Macisaac <bmacisaa@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi John,

The latest practices library does add
a new project process tailoring practice, which was the most glaring gap
when comparing "RUP for small projects" with OpenUP.
IBM's commercial extensions to OpenUP
include practices for model-oriented development, requirements management,
and formal change management, so they would be a good starting point for
you.  However, they are not open source. Send me note if you would
like more information about this option.

Bruce MacIsaac
Manager RMC Method Content
bmacisaa@xxxxxxxxxx
408-250-3037 (cell)

From:	Snails Love Mail <snailslovemail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:	epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date:	01/21/2011 01:42 AM
Subject:	[epf-dev] EPF community post states that 'RUP for Small Projects' content has been "donated"?
Sent by:	epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

Dear List,

We're looking to "beef up" OpenUP a bit, primarily to get more
model oriented focus into the process as well as a stronger reqs management,
change mgmt etc. It would probably be fair to say something a bit closer
to "RUP for small projects" would suite us without loosing some
of the UPF goodness (e.g. practices, EPF community content too).

We came across the following archived EPF-dev post:

http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/epf-dev/msg00525.html

Which states:

>So you're an EPF author, and you need to write a guideline or concept.
 
>You know that there is some material in RUP that you'd like to copy,
>but unfortunately, that material belongs to IBM. 
>
>Good news!  As part of the OpenUP donation, IBM donated small
project 
>RUP content as source material for authors to use. 
>You can download it here: 
>http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/org.eclipse.epf/additional/?cvsroot=Technology_Project#RUP%204%20small%20projects%20config.zip
>
>This is not a working RUP configuration.  It is intended only
as source 
>material to be reworked into OpenUP/Basic. 

Has anyone got anything more concrete regarding this?

Can anyone point me to or advise me how I validate this
assertion?

Thanks,
John_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev