Thanks to all who replied, it's extremely helpful. I'll add a focus on
integration tests to the list of requirements
Mainn
- Original Message -
Hey, you've already got a bunch of answers, but FWIW:
a) I think it's fine to do a few big patches deleting stuff you don't
want. You can
Hey all,
We're starting to work on the UI for tuskar based on Jarda's wireframes, and as
we're doing so, we're realizing that
we're not quite sure what development methodology is appropriate. Some
questions:
a) Because we're essentially doing a tear-down and re-build of the whole
a) Because we're essentially doing a tear-down and re-build of the
whole architecture (a lot of the concepts in tuskar
will simply disappear), it's difficult to do small incremental patches
that support existing functionality. Is it okay
to have patches that break functionality? Are there good
b) In the past, we allowed parallel development of the UI and API by
having well-documented expectations of what the API
Are these expectations documented yet? I'm new to the project and still
finding my way around. I've seen the wireframes and am going through
Chen's icehouse
Excerpts from Tzu-Mainn Chen's message of 2013-12-06 07:37:20 -0800:
Hey all,
We're starting to work on the UI for tuskar based on Jarda's wireframes, and
as we're doing so, we're realizing that
we're not quite sure what development methodology is appropriate. Some
questions:
a)
On 2013-12-06 12:19, Jay Dobies wrote:
a) Because we're essentially doing a tear-down and re-build of the
whole architecture (a lot of the concepts in tuskar
will simply disappear), it's difficult to do small incremental
patches
that support existing functionality. Is it okay
to have patches
