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

Agile RUP / XP / swine / pearls

Expand Messages
  • acockburn@aol.com
    In a message dated 8/30/2002 6:43:34 PM Mountain Daylight Time, Ron Jeffries ... Definitely the case that people mis-hear the message of RUP and XP both. The
    Message 1 of 46 , Aug 31, 2002
      In a message dated 8/30/2002 6:43:34 PM Mountain Daylight Time, Ron Jeffries
      writes:


      > <<What have you seen, along those lines (pro or con) in your many
      > project ethnological encounters?>>
      >

      Definitely the case that people mis-hear the message of RUP and XP both.

      The ad for Guiness: "I've never tried Guiness because I don't like it."
      applies here.

      Just last week a guy told me - "our company execs ordered RUP, because they
      don't want to have to tailor a methodology over and over. I told them it is
      supposed to be tailored. They said, ' If we wanted to tailor one, we'd write
      our own - we don't , and that's why we mandating RUP for everything. "
      That's an example of severe mishearing.

      At XP/Agile Universe, a guy told me, "I'm the only one here from my company -
      the execs won't let anyone else go to anything with XP in the name - ' We
      won't allow that kind of cowboy hacking in the company.' "
      Another example of severe mishearing.

      I have not yet heard anyone say that RUP requires 30 people on the project
      because it names 30 roles, or anything even along those lines.
      (I do hear, all the time, that the big boss requires them to produce ALL of
      the named deliverables, without regard to anything else).

      cheers - Alistair


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • dhemeryy
      Hi Ron, ... Yes, that s the defining characteristic of acceptance tests. Operate through the same interfaces the users operate through is not a defining
      Message 46 of 46 , Sep 5, 2002
        Hi Ron,

        > > Yes. I meant to say that my understanding of acceptance tests
        > > (which I may choose to change) is that they operate through the
        > > same interfaces the users operate through.
        >
        > That is not my understanding of acceptance tests. My understanding
        > of acceptance tests is that they are tests that provide the
        > customers with confirmation that the system probably does what they
        > asked it to do.

        Yes, that's the defining characteristic of acceptance tests. "Operate
        through the same interfaces the users operate through" is not a
        defining characteristic, but is typically true of the acceptance tests
        used on the non-XP projects I've known.

        > I've never seen an XP team that did most or all their acceptance
        > tests through the GUI. There may be some, but I've never seen one.

        Yes. It's taken me a long time to clarify the difference between what
        XP projects think of acceptance tests and how I've thought of
        acceptance tests (assuming that I understand it even now). This is
        one of the things that has been difficult for me to learn about XP.

        Dale
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.