6528Re: [scrumdevelopment] Completeness definition
- Mar 3, 2005On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 19:55:23 +0100, David H. <dmalloc@...> wrote:
>I should clarify my original comment. Fowler's definition of
> > > >
> > > > This is the sort of stuff I can live with and makes sense. I *have*
> > > > wondered about the "Code has been refactored" requirement. What if
> > > > code is well factored to start with? Do we always need to refactor?
> > > >
> > > Refactoring is a big part of Scrum and test driven development in my
> > Scrum defines no engineering practices. That is not to say that
> > refactoring or TDD isn't important, it is just not part of Scrum.
> I beg to differ. But I guess that is purely philosohpical. To me it is
> part of Scrum because scrum does define a methodology that leads to
> certain processes. Maybe one could argue that it is more part of test
> driven development than scrum. But then again, who cares :)
refactoring is "the process of changing a software system in such a
way that it does not alter the external behavior of the code yet
improves its internal structure."
My issue was with this statement as a suggested criteria for
completness: "Code has been refactored". Refactoring describes a
process, not an end state. I would rather make the criteria something
like "Code is well factored" and describe a desirable state. To
suggest that all new code written must be refactored is a bit strong,
IMHO. Certainly there are cases were the initial implementation of
software is reasonably well factored.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>