Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XP] Re: Shouldnt done include everything.

Expand Messages
  • Steve Ropa
    You know, intellectually I get that. But so many teams that seem to grok the rest of what agile is about stumble on this one. From: Curtis Cooley Sent:
    Message 1 of 49 , Jun 3, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      You know, intellectually I get that. But so many teams that seem to grok the rest of what agile is about stumble on this one.


      From: Curtis Cooley
      Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 10:13 AM
      To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [XP] Re: Shouldnt done include everything.



      On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Steve Ropa <theropas@...> wrote:
      > I wonder why this concept is so difficult? I'm not being sarcastic, I
      > really do wonder. This has been a struggle for many teams. The last time I
      > blogged on it, the idea that there is no such hand-off was called naïve. I
      > would love to find a good way to explain this so that it didn't keep coming
      > up.
      >
      > I personally think the baggage of separation between the roles of
      > "developer" and "tester" is a large part of it, but I may be high.
      >
      It's difficult because XP is such a huge paradigm shift. In Software
      Engineering 101 it's pounded into your head that changes are hard,
      systems are fragile, and bugs will happen, so big testing phases are
      required to ensure the silly developers haven't broken anything.

      XP tells you all that doesn't have to be true. That a small set of
      good practices can make software not fragile, and you can write code
      up to the end of the iteration. It's a huge leap of faith, one that
      most of us have taken and seen in practice, but if you haven't seen it
      work, and you just have a bunch of experts telling you it works, then
      that leap of faith is hard to take.

      The best software teams treat each integration like a release. Every
      time code is committed to the main branch, it's good enough to
      release. Maybe it's not feature complete, or as shiny as we want, but
      from a 'quality' stand point, it's releasable.

      --
      Curtis Cooley
      curtis.cooley@...
      home:http://curtiscooley.com
      blog:http://ponderingobjectorienteddesign.blogspot.com
      ===============
      Leadership is a potent combination of strategy and character. But if
      you must be without one, be without the strategy.
      -- H. Norman Schwarzkopf




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Adam Sroka
      Hi Jeff: Are you responding to what Tim wrote below? Or to one of the earlier messages that I wrote? Anyway, thanks ;-) On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Jeff
      Message 49 of 49 , Jun 9, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Jeff:

        Are you responding to what Tim wrote below? Or to one of the earlier
        messages that I wrote?

        Anyway, thanks ;-)

        On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Jeff Anderson
        <Thomasjeffreyandersontwin@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > Adam
        >
        > Your description of your coding life cycle was a breath of fresh air,
        > I sometimes get so surrounded by the old schoolers that I forget how
        > profound and powerful the XP approach is.
        >
        > Bravo.
        >
        > On 6/9/10, Tim Ottinger <linux_tim@...> wrote:
        > > FWIW
        > >
        > > My current company (an awesome place) is two years into agile transition.
        > > They are still releasing by content rather than time, mostly because it
        > > hasn't sunk in to upper levels the way it has been embraced in lower levels.
        > >
        > > There is a large legacy code base still, though it is constantly being
        > > whittled down. It has less coverage than the newer code.
        > >
        > > The ideal we strive for is that someday release will be a nonevent. There
        > > are many versions of our software in git that have had a full batch of
        > > unit and automated acceptance tests. Eventually, we will have sufficient
        > > trust in them that we can release any of them at any time. That's when
        > > we have arrived.
        > >
        > > While the code base and product management haven't fully transitioned, we
        > > have a 'code freeze' (really a branchpoint, after which we continue on) and
        > > there is manual testing and exploratory testing before a release. We are
        > > not really blocked by it, and we are programming on the day of release (on
        > > the next release).
        > >
        > > But someday a release will be a total non-event. Someone will pick a release
        > > package from the CI system and run the automated deploy on it in our big
        > > SAAS farm and nobody will stay up late or worry about it. Until then, we
        > > have the ever-thinning vestiges of an earlier circumstance.
        > >
        > > Tim Ottinger
        > > http://agileinaflash.blogspot.com/
        > > http://agileotter.blogspot.com/
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        > --
        > Sent from my mobile device
        >
        > Jeff Anderson
        >
        > http://agileconsulting.blogspot.com/
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.