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

[XP] Re: Simplest Possible Process

Expand Messages
  • aacockburn
    ...and one way of doing this is to start with the Null process, which is sure to fail in some manner, and looking for failing unit tests, then add only
    Message 1 of 116 , Mar 30, 2004
      ...and one way of doing this is to start with the Null process, which
      is sure to fail in some manner, and looking for failing unit tests,
      then add only elements that repair failures.

      I personally would think that this approach might produce a minimal
      and effective process for each project, if it could be done quickly
      enough to pay back the time spent doing it.

      There's probably even a technique for this, written up, I'm sure ...
      Alistair


      --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, Ron Jeffries
      <ronjeffries@X...> wrote:
      > On Tuesday, March 30, 2004, at 8:34:28 PM, Dale Emery wrote:
      >
      > >> I guess we might agree that they don't describe agility to the
      > >> exclusion of ... non-agility?
      >
      > > Yes.
      >
      > > Now here's my sneaky little plan. If we start with these fuzzy
      > > words, agree to their obvious wonderfulness, and then start
      > > exploring the details, we will discover places where our process
      > > isn't as efficient or effective as we'd like. And we'll discover
      > > bits that are unnecessary or insufficient. When we discover that
      > > stuff, we'll fix it, and in fixing it, we'll make the process
      > > more agile.
      >
      > Yes, I see that. Now if we just knew what it is ...
      >
      > Ron Jeffries
      > www.XProgramming.com
      > If names and real items do not correspond with each other, there
      will be fighting.
      > -- Jing Fa
    • aacockburn
      ...and one way of doing this is to start with the Null process, which is sure to fail in some manner, and looking for failing unit tests, then add only
      Message 116 of 116 , Mar 30, 2004
        ...and one way of doing this is to start with the Null process, which
        is sure to fail in some manner, and looking for failing unit tests,
        then add only elements that repair failures.

        I personally would think that this approach might produce a minimal
        and effective process for each project, if it could be done quickly
        enough to pay back the time spent doing it.

        There's probably even a technique for this, written up, I'm sure ...
        Alistair


        --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, Ron Jeffries
        <ronjeffries@X...> wrote:
        > On Tuesday, March 30, 2004, at 8:34:28 PM, Dale Emery wrote:
        >
        > >> I guess we might agree that they don't describe agility to the
        > >> exclusion of ... non-agility?
        >
        > > Yes.
        >
        > > Now here's my sneaky little plan. If we start with these fuzzy
        > > words, agree to their obvious wonderfulness, and then start
        > > exploring the details, we will discover places where our process
        > > isn't as efficient or effective as we'd like. And we'll discover
        > > bits that are unnecessary or insufficient. When we discover that
        > > stuff, we'll fix it, and in fixing it, we'll make the process
        > > more agile.
        >
        > Yes, I see that. Now if we just knew what it is ...
        >
        > Ron Jeffries
        > www.XProgramming.com
        > If names and real items do not correspond with each other, there
        will be fighting.
        > -- Jing Fa
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.