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

Re: Who the hell is Ron Miller and WHY is he redefining Agile for MSFT?

Expand Messages
  • dnicolet99
    One of the good/bad things about VSTS is its customizability. Good because you can set it up pretty much any way you want. Bad because it s a tremendous hassle
    Message 1 of 134 , Nov 6, 2006
      One of the good/bad things about VSTS is its customizability. Good
      because you can set it up pretty much any way you want. Bad because
      it's a tremendous hassle to customize the thing.

      You can change just about anything - except the way the "work item"
      element is defined, with its built-in concept of ownership. I don't
      know what the best way to handle this is, but my workaround was to
      make "Team" the owner of every work item.

      --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Steve Freeman
      <smgfreeman@...> wrote:
      >
      > On 3 Nov 2006, at 14:27, dnicolet99 wrote:
      > > 'We started with the [MFS] Agile template and customized it somewhat.
      > > Out of the box, it had no support for pair programming. Our Microsoft
      > > mentors told us that was because pair programming is specifically an
      > > XP thing, and not generally an Agile thing. Fine, but nearly everyone
      > > in the world who practices Agile development, whether they use XP or
      > > not, uses pair programming. We added a field for a pairing partner,
      > > but the tool still treats every work item as if it were "owned" by one
      > > individual developer. This is consistent with the general mindset
      > > reflected in the design of the data model, that project management is
      > > largely about finding someone to hang when something goes awry down
      > > the line. Definitely not Agile thinking.
      > I think I remember similar issues with Smalltalk/Envy back in the
      > Cretaceous. Our solution then was to have everyone use the same
      > account and annotate the check-in comments. Does VSTS allow you to do
      > that?
      >
      > S.
      >
    • dnicolet99
      One of the good/bad things about VSTS is its customizability. Good because you can set it up pretty much any way you want. Bad because it s a tremendous hassle
      Message 134 of 134 , Nov 6, 2006
        One of the good/bad things about VSTS is its customizability. Good
        because you can set it up pretty much any way you want. Bad because
        it's a tremendous hassle to customize the thing.

        You can change just about anything - except the way the "work item"
        element is defined, with its built-in concept of ownership. I don't
        know what the best way to handle this is, but my workaround was to
        make "Team" the owner of every work item.

        --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Steve Freeman
        <smgfreeman@...> wrote:
        >
        > On 3 Nov 2006, at 14:27, dnicolet99 wrote:
        > > 'We started with the [MFS] Agile template and customized it somewhat.
        > > Out of the box, it had no support for pair programming. Our Microsoft
        > > mentors told us that was because pair programming is specifically an
        > > XP thing, and not generally an Agile thing. Fine, but nearly everyone
        > > in the world who practices Agile development, whether they use XP or
        > > not, uses pair programming. We added a field for a pairing partner,
        > > but the tool still treats every work item as if it were "owned" by one
        > > individual developer. This is consistent with the general mindset
        > > reflected in the design of the data model, that project management is
        > > largely about finding someone to hang when something goes awry down
        > > the line. Definitely not Agile thinking.
        > I think I remember similar issues with Smalltalk/Envy back in the
        > Cretaceous. Our solution then was to have everyone use the same
        > account and annotate the check-in comments. Does VSTS allow you to do
        > that?
        >
        > S.
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.