Adopting a non-reality-based editorial process is one of the most common ways of doing Agile wrong. I think that's often based on a misreading of the part of the Agile manifesto that says, "Working software over comprehensive documentation." That refers to developer-written documentation such as specs.
QA and documentation simply can't always be completed in the same sprint as development. My most extreme example was an update to a major open-source component of the product I was documenting. It took the developer a few hours and his draft documentation was under 500 words. It took two and a half months (three more sprints) to test and document the extremely complex process of migrating to the new version, and the resulting doc was ten pages including four different procedures with a total of 48 steps. On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:22 AM, cuc tu <cu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > ... Our teams run 3 week sprints and the expectation is that at the end of > each sprint, there is product ready to enter the release process (which means > regression test to mfg and staging final docs for publication). The reality > is there are often failures in testing and most sprints do not complete a > releasable package, and there are otherwise marketing activities that really > control the public release. ... _______________________________________________ This message is from the Framers mailing list Send messages to framers@lists.frameusers.com Visit the list's homepage at http://www.frameusers.com Archives located at http://www.mail-archive.com/framers%40lists.frameusers.com/ Subscribe and unsubscribe at http://lists.frameusers.com/listinfo.cgi/framers-frameusers.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com
