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

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

Expand Messages
  • Steven Gordon
    If the adoption happens during an ongoing project, the accumulated technical debt makes it much more difficult to succeed at doing this. If the objective is to
    Message 1 of 49 , Jun 3, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      If the adoption happens during an ongoing project, the accumulated
      technical debt makes it much more difficult to succeed at doing this.

      If the objective is to learn XP, it is best to start greenfield.

      On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Curtis Cooley <curtis.cooley@...> wrote:
      > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Steve Ropa <theropas@...> wrote:
      >
      >>
      >>
      >> 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.
      >>
      >> I think it's fear. The rest of Agile doesn't ask you to take as big a leap
      > of faith:
      >
      > Put all the developers in one room? No problem.
      >
      > Short cycles? You bet.
      >
      > Embrace change? We can do that.
      >
      > Code up to the end of the iteration, trusting it's releasable? Um, well,
      > wow. That's kind of a big step. What if there's bugs? What if it's not
      > ready? We better test it for a while first, just to be sure.
      >
      > Perhaps the team just needs to get better at XP before they can take that
      > final step, but each retrospective should address readiness for that step.
      > When the iteration comes when the testers don't have anything to do those
      > last few days, it'll start to click.
      >
      >> From: Curtis Cooley
      >> Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 10:13 AM
      >>
      >> To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com<extremeprogramming%40yahoogroups.com>
      >> Subject: Re: [XP] Re: Shouldnt done include everything.
      >>
      >> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Steve Ropa <theropas@...<theropas%40q.com>>
      >> 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 naďve.
      >> 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@... <curtis.cooley%40gmail.com>
      >> 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]
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >
      >
      >
      > --
      > 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
    • 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.