The Architecture and Development package teams are considering changing disciplines in OpenUP/Basic and we wanted to see if anyone has any significant comments, support, or objections. You can comment directly to the bugzilla at https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=174028 .
We're considering re-organizing the disciplines in OpenUP/Basic in the following ways: * Rename the Implementation discipline to Development and move design and implementation tasks into this discipline. * Change A&D to Architecture and have 2 architecture tasks in this discipline. Some analysis would still be performed here in the context of defining the architecture. The motivations for doing this are: * People move back-and-forth between implementation and design, often seamlessly. In fact, these terms appear to be almost interchangeable in the Agile community. So it seems to make sense to have a view that packages these tasks together. * Making Architecture a discipline raises its visibility and importance. Disciplines are not structural. They're essentially a label for a group of method content elements. This makes it easier to extend, change or remove the disciplines. ____________________ Jim Ruehlin, IBM Rational RUP Content Developer Eclipse Process Framework (EPF) Committer www.eclipse.org/epf email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 760.505.3232 fax: 949.369.0720
_______________________________________________ epf-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
