Richard L. Hamilton wrote: >> I chose to use words that are deliberately >> provocative, and engender >> some of the fears of agile methodology. Agile methods >> do emphasize >> real time communication, over written documents. >> Agile methods also >> emphasize "working software" as the measure of >> progress, and produce >> very little written documentation relative to other >> methods. This has >> resulted in criticism of agile methods as being >> undisciplined, which >> BTW is the point I was trying to emphasis with my >> choice of words. >> > > Where existing functionality for the user would not be broken, > "working" is certainly better than nothing. But IMO, a distinction > between "working" and "production quality for high-reliability requirements" > would be essential, especially where the latter has historically been closer > to the standard. > > With agile (at least XP) working == production quality.
> As for documentation, IMO there had better at least be a commitment > to develop it too, even if only in the form of a wiki or some such, > so that as one converges on stability, a snapshot can be taken and the > result rewritten into proper documentation. Heck, how can you do > development at all with the possibility of non-zero turnover among the > developers, unless there's something other than just the code to > capture design choices and principles? > > A wiki is a very handy tool in those circumstances. > So I think the more aggressive a model one chooses to follow, the > more carefully one has to define the limits of the model. > > Whatever methodology is chosen, all aspects of the process have to be followed. All too often teams pretend to be following an agile process as an excuse for cutting corners. Ian _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
