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

Re: Potentially releasable software

Expand Messages
  • Rob Park
    ... That s obviously a big problem. How much is (or could be) automated? Can things be parallelized? Imagine how much better things would be if you could get
    Message 1 of 20 , Nov 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Can you talk more about this:

      --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Graybill" <Mark@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > - Our full testing suite takes a full week.

      That's obviously a big problem.

      How much is (or could be) automated?
      Can things be parallelized?

      Imagine how much better things would be if you could get that down to
      24 hours.

      .rob.
    • Mark Graybill
      Thanks Wolfgang, I agree. We might be ready to file if our sprints were 4 weeks and we can automate most of our tests. Our software is advanced visualization
      Message 2 of 20 , Nov 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks Wolfgang, I agree.  We might be ready to file if our sprints were 4 weeks and we can automate most of our tests.  Our software is advanced visualization and so a few tests require a person to visually inspect the rendered images.
         
        There is more to discuss in this regard, but suffice me to say our test group has managers that are my peers, and we have a long way to go.
         
        I'm soliciting the forum to get experience and insight.  When I start hearing talk about whether something does or does not measure up to Scrum or Agile, I get the willies envisioning it all ending up as yet another silver bullet sighting.  While we're looking, time marches on.
         
        "Reality is here and is what it is; it doesn't change instantly; and it neve reaches ideal." 
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 4:31 AM
        Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Potentially releasable software

        Hi Mark,
         
        "potentially releasable" does not mean you should go and file for a Class II approval every 4 weeks (or whatever your sprint cycle is). It only means that if you wanted to, you could go and do it. Quite clearly there is no sense in actually doing it at that frequency.
        If you need a full week to run a complete cycle of tests, then I would suggest that there are probably improvements to be made to your testing. The vast majority of your testing should be automated and run in less than 15 minutes. There are numerous test frameworks available for just about any programming environment you can think of. That should reduce the number of tests that have to be run manually drastically and therefore shorten that time dramatically.
         
        Scrum is quite clear about the fact that there should be release planning and that the PO and the team should consider doing a "release sprint" prior to an actual release to do all those things that you would not add to a normal sprint. I am not an expert on this, because we write internal software and we actually do release every 2 weeks (but then we don't have to get FDA Class II approval), but I am sure others on this list can say more about this.
         

        Regards,

        Wolfgang

         


        From: scrumdevelopment@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:scrumdevelo pment@yahoogroup s.com] On Behalf Of Mark Graybill
        Sent: 01 November 2007 00:40
        To: scrumdevelopment@ yahoogroups. com
        Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Potentially releasable software

        A debate has brewed here regarding a statement someone made that we are not really doing Scrum because we do not have a releasable product at the end of every Sprint.
         
        The dilemma is this:
         
        - Our software is classified by the FDA as a Class II medical device so getting filing done every 30 days is a challenge.
        - Our full testing suite takes a full week.
        - In order to faciliate quicker ramp-up for the team in assimilating and being productive using Scrum, we are doing 15 day Sprints (in speaking with Mike Cohn I think this is a preference we have in common.) 
        - From a project standpoint, 30 day Sprints are challenging and 15 day Sprints impose a near impossibility to produce a releasable product or even potentially releasable at the end of every Sprint.
        - The idea of deploying at this frequency has not been well received by our customers.
         
        The proposal in debate is this:
         
        - Each user story involves a procedure to bring it to potentially releasable status.
        - The end result is a feature tested and integrated into the product.
        - But the product itself does not go through full testing every Sprint.
        - Have alpha releases that only require an alpha contract and do that every two Sprints.
         
        What are some of your experiences and opinions in this regard?

        Thanks,
        Mark

      • Mark Graybill
        ... Apples and eggplant. :) ... I cannot do anything officially, unfortunately. The test team has managers that are my peers. Regardless, there are some tests
        Message 3 of 20 , Nov 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment

           
          Ilja Preuss wrote:
           
          > I wonder how PatientKeeper is doing it.
           
          Apples and eggplant. :)
           
          > What are you planning to do to decrease this time?
           
          I cannot do anything officially, unfortunately.  The test team has managers that are my peers. Regardless, there are some tests that are hopelessly manual and tedious (see my previous post).
           
          It is however in my power to do sufficient testing on the development side that their side finds minimal issues.  Plus, we are trying to lead them toward their own change (from inside out).
           
          > What are the roadblocks to getting a releasable product in that time
          frame?
           
          The process to getting us ready to file, the testing required, and the defect fixing afterwork and all the tracework and documentation.
           
          > That probably means that receiving a deployment is in some way
          "painful"
          > to your customers. Where is that pain coming from, and how
          could you
          > mitigate it? What would be needed to make it a
          no-brainer?
           
          Good thinking.  Unfortunately, the pain lies in the market.  Special workflows, specific uses of the visualization, and specific DICOM characteristics make careful consideration for each case prudent.  We screw it up now.   So anything from video hardware upgrade requirements to clinical application bioalgorithms to image rendering to new DICOM enigmas, require great care in who gets what when.  It might work for most releases if every site had staging hardware so they can try it out before we screw up their workflow (and no hardware upgrades), but multiply that by about 4000.
           
          > I always thought that was the *definition* of a user story. Isn't
          it?
           
          That is what I was thinking.
           
          > Sure. "Done done".
           
          We have a checklist explicating what "done" means.
           
          > If you don't fully test the product, how do you never whether you are
          > really *done*?
           
          Good question...
           
          > What does "alpha contract" mean in this context, and how would it
          help?
           
          That is just paperwork.  The FDA requires it.  Until we file, customers have restrictions how they use it.
           
          Thanks for the post - it was thought provoking!
           
          Cheers!
          Mark
        • Scott Preece
          ... It ... The point of the Scrum approach is to deliver value to the customer. In many cases (maybe most cases) it s not feasible for every iteration to
          Message 4 of 20 , Nov 2, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Ilja Preuss wrote:

            | Vikrama Dhiman wrote:
            |
            | > Lets examine it quite literally. "Potentially" shippable "software" -
            | > just because you have "potentially" shippable "software" does not mean
            | > you should but you can. If it needs to pass through some additional
            | > auditing/ test/ regulatory procedures - that should comprise activities
            | > which are additional to "main software". I know you can argue that till
            | > they pass this, you dont know if the code is shippable or not.
            |
            | Perhaps more importantly, it won't provide value until they pass it.
            It
            | is an investment sitting on the shelf waiting to produce value. Waste.
            ---

            The point of the Scrum approach is to deliver value to the customer. In
            many cases (maybe most cases) it's not feasible for every iteration to
            deliver a complete, shippable *product*, just shippable value. The
            value delivered may be ready to ship, but it may not constitute
            a complete product that makes sense for the customer to ship, or the
            customer may simply not want to ship that product at that time (not
            enough to satisfy her customers, too soon after the previous release,
            etc.). The customer determines when there is enough value to
            actually ship by setting priorities and the release plan. The customer
            could equally decide at some point to throw in the towel and sell the
            delivered value to another company.

            Depending on the nature of the certification testing process, it might
            make sense to treat that testing as a story that is scheduled for each
            release or it might make sense to treat it as something the
            customer
            does after the software is delivered.

            regards,
            scott
          • Roy Morien
            I wonder if we are all singing from the same hymn book when we talk about customers and shippable software . My understanding of the concept of customer
            Message 5 of 20 , Nov 2, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              I wonder if we are all singing from the same hymn book when we talk about 'customers' and 'shippable software'.
               
              My understanding of the concept of 'customer' in an iterative, agile environment does not just include the final user. Other developers whose software depends on your outcomes are also customers. So perhaps "shippable software" means software that is of value to the next 'customer', whoever that next customer may be; including other developers even on the same team.
               
              Do others understand this in the same way as I do? Does making the concept of 'customer' more inclusive in this way help the discussion about 'shippable software'.
               
              What it does do is essentially say that the outcome of every sprint could be 'shippable software', provided that software is useable 'as is' by the next in line 'customer'.
               
              Regards
              Roy Morien





              To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
              From: sepreece@...
              Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 08:40:53 -0700
              Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Potentially releasable software

              Ilja Preuss wrote:

              | Vikrama Dhiman wrote:
              |
              | > Lets examine it quite literally. "Potentially" shippable "software" -
              | > just because you have "potentially" shippable "software" does not mean
              | > you should but you can. If it needs to pass through some additional
              | > auditing/ test/ regulatory procedures - that should comprise activities
              | > which are additional to "main software". I know you can argue that till
              | > they pass this, you dont know if the code is shippable or not.
              |
              | Perhaps more importantly, it won't provide value until they pass it.
              It
              | is an investment sitting on the shelf waiting to produce value. Waste.
              ---

              The point of the Scrum approach is to deliver value to the customer. In
              many cases (maybe most cases) it's not feasible for every iteration to
              deliver a complete, shippable *product*, just shippable value. The
              value delivered may be ready to ship, but it may not constitute
              a complete product that makes sense for the customer to ship, or the
              customer may simply not want to ship that product at that time (not
              enough to satisfy her customers, too soon after the previous release,
              etc.). The customer determines when there is enough value to
              actually ship by setting priorities and the release plan. The customer
              could equally decide at some point to throw in the towel and sell the
              delivered value to another company.

              Depending on the nature of the certification testing process, it might
              make sense to treat that testing as a story that is scheduled for each
              release or it might make sense to treat it as something the
              customer
              does after the software is delivered.

              regards,
              scott




              Find it at www.seek.com.au Your Future Starts Here. Dream it? Then be it!
            • Ilja Preuss
              The first time a feature produces real value is when an end user uses it in a production environment. The less delay there is between the development of a
              Message 6 of 20 , Nov 4, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                The first time a feature produces "real" value is when an end user uses
                it in a production environment. The less delay there is between the
                development of a feature and an end user using it, the less waste.

                Of course there often is also value in delivering the feature to someone
                in between. I think it is generally true that that is less value than
                actually delivering to an end user. The better we get at delivering more
                often to the end user, the better.

                Am I missing something?

                Cheers, Ilja

                Roy Morien wrote:
                > I wonder if we are all singing from the same hymn book when we talk
                > about 'customers' and 'shippable software'.
                >
                > My understanding of the concept of 'customer' in an iterative, agile
                > environment does not just include the final user. Other developers whose
                > software depends on your outcomes are also customers. So perhaps
                > "shippable software" means software that is of value to the next
                > 'customer', whoever that next customer may be; including other
                > developers even on the same team.
                >
                > Do others understand this in the same way as I do? Does making the
                > concept of 'customer' more inclusive in this way help the discussion
                > about 'shippable software'.
                >
                > What it does do is essentially say that the outcome of every sprint
                > could be 'shippable software', provided that software is useable 'as is'
                > by the next in line 'customer'.
                >
                > Regards
                > Roy Morien
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                > From: sepreece@...
                > Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 08:40:53 -0700
                > Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Potentially releasable software
                >
                > Ilja Preuss wrote:
                >
                > | Vikrama Dhiman wrote:
                > |
                > | > Lets examine it quite literally. "Potentially" shippable
                > "software" -
                > | > just because you have "potentially" shippable "software" does
                > not mean
                > | > you should but you can. If it needs to pass through some additional
                > | > auditing/ test/ regulatory procedures - that should comprise
                > activities
                > | > which are additional to "main software". I know you can argue
                > that till
                > | > they pass this, you dont know if the code is shippable or not.
                > |
                > | Perhaps more importantly, it won't provide value until they pass it.
                > It
                > | is an investment sitting on the shelf waiting to produce value. Waste.
                > ---
                >
                > The point of the Scrum approach is to deliver value to the customer. In
                > many cases (maybe most cases) it's not feasible for every iteration to
                > deliver a complete, shippable *product*, just shippable value. The
                > value delivered may be ready to ship, but it may not constitute
                > a complete product that makes sense for the customer to ship, or the
                > customer may simply not want to ship that product at that time (not
                > enough to satisfy her customers, too soon after the previous release,
                > etc.). The customer determines when there is enough value to
                > actually ship by setting priorities and the release plan. The customer
                > could equally decide at some point to throw in the towel and sell the
                > delivered value to another company.
                >
                > Depending on the nature of the certification testing process, it might
                > make sense to treat that testing as a story that is scheduled for each
                > release or it might make sense to treat it as something the
                > customer
                > does after the software is delivered.
                >
                > regards,
                > scott
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                > Find it at www.seek.com.au Your Future Starts Here. Dream it? Then be
                > it!
                > <http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Eseek%2Ecom%2Eau%2F%3Ftracking%3Dsk%3Ahet%3Ask%3Anine%3A0%3Ahot%3Atext&_t=764565661&_r=OCT07_endtext_Future&_m=EXT>
                >
              • Michael James
                ... Also less risk. Building subsystems while deferring their integration and testing is asking for trouble. Potentially shippable means shippable within
                Message 7 of 20 , Nov 4, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Ilja Preuss <it@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > The first time a feature produces "real" value is when an end user uses
                  > it in a production environment. The less delay there is between the
                  > development of a feature and an end user using it, the less waste.

                  Also less risk. Building subsystems while deferring their
                  integration and testing is asking for trouble.

                  "Potentially shippable" means shippable within one stabilization
                  sprint, or less. I'd rather have a smaller number of potentially
                  shippable features than a larger number of features that
                  haven't been integrated with the end product.

                  --mj
                • Dan Rawsthorne
                  I don t think you are missing anything. However, it s not so simple. A deliverable feature may take several (in fact, many) stories to develop. The value we
                  Message 8 of 20 , Nov 6, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I don't think you are missing anything. However, it's not so simple. A
                    deliverable feature may take several (in fact, many) stories to develop.
                    The value we deliver with each story may be potentially releasable, but
                    that does not mean that the feature is usable or understandable by a
                    "real" user. Therefore, we often need to release to an intermediate user
                    representative that can understand the difference. This could be a
                    tester, an analyst, or some other developer -- whatever it takes to
                    mitigate the risk of if not being the right thing.

                    Dan Rawsthorne, PhD, CST
                    Senior Coach, Danube Technologies
                    dan@..., 425-269-8628



                    Ilja Preuss wrote:
                    >
                    > The first time a feature produces "real" value is when an end user uses
                    > it in a production environment. The less delay there is between the
                    > development of a feature and an end user using it, the less waste.
                    >
                    > Of course there often is also value in delivering the feature to someone
                    > in between. I think it is generally true that that is less value than
                    > actually delivering to an end user. The better we get at delivering more
                    > often to the end user, the better.
                    >
                    > Am I missing something?
                    >
                    > Cheers, Ilja
                    >
                    > Roy Morien wrote:
                    > > I wonder if we are all singing from the same hymn book when we talk
                    > > about 'customers' and 'shippable software'.
                    > >
                    > > My understanding of the concept of 'customer' in an iterative, agile
                    > > environment does not just include the final user. Other developers
                    > whose
                    > > software depends on your outcomes are also customers. So perhaps
                    > > "shippable software" means software that is of value to the next
                    > > 'customer', whoever that next customer may be; including other
                    > > developers even on the same team.
                    > >
                    > > Do others understand this in the same way as I do? Does making the
                    > > concept of 'customer' more inclusive in this way help the discussion
                    > > about 'shippable software'.
                    > >
                    > > What it does do is essentially say that the outcome of every sprint
                    > > could be 'shippable software', provided that software is useable 'as
                    > is'
                    > > by the next in line 'customer'.
                    > >
                    > > Regards
                    > > Roy Morien
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > ----------------------------------------------------------
                    > > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                    > <mailto:scrumdevelopment%40yahoogroups.com>
                    > > From: sepreece@... <mailto:sepreece%40yahoo.com>
                    > > Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 08:40:53 -0700
                    > > Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Potentially releasable software
                    > >
                    > > Ilja Preuss wrote:
                    > >
                    > > | Vikrama Dhiman wrote:
                    > > |
                    > > | > Lets examine it quite literally. "Potentially" shippable
                    > > "software" -
                    > > | > just because you have "potentially" shippable "software" does
                    > > not mean
                    > > | > you should but you can. If it needs to pass through some additional
                    > > | > auditing/ test/ regulatory procedures - that should comprise
                    > > activities
                    > > | > which are additional to "main software". I know you can argue
                    > > that till
                    > > | > they pass this, you dont know if the code is shippable or not.
                    > > |
                    > > | Perhaps more importantly, it won't provide value until they pass it.
                    > > It
                    > > | is an investment sitting on the shelf waiting to produce value. Waste.
                    > > ---
                    > >
                    > > The point of the Scrum approach is to deliver value to the customer. In
                    > > many cases (maybe most cases) it's not feasible for every iteration to
                    > > deliver a complete, shippable *product*, just shippable value. The
                    > > value delivered may be ready to ship, but it may not constitute
                    > > a complete product that makes sense for the customer to ship, or the
                    > > customer may simply not want to ship that product at that time (not
                    > > enough to satisfy her customers, too soon after the previous release,
                    > > etc.). The customer determines when there is enough value to
                    > > actually ship by setting priorities and the release plan. The customer
                    > > could equally decide at some point to throw in the towel and sell the
                    > > delivered value to another company.
                    > >
                    > > Depending on the nature of the certification testing process, it might
                    > > make sense to treat that testing as a story that is scheduled for each
                    > > release or it might make sense to treat it as something the
                    > > customer
                    > > does after the software is delivered.
                    > >
                    > > regards,
                    > > scott
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > ----------------------------------------------------------
                    > > Find it at www.seek.com.au Your Future Starts Here. Dream it? Then be
                    > > it!
                    > >
                    > <http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Eseek%2Ecom%2Eau%2F%3Ftracking%3Dsk%3Ahet%3Ask%3Anine%3A0%3Ahot%3Atext&_t=764565661&_r=OCT07_endtext_Future&_m=EXT
                    > <http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Eseek%2Ecom%2Eau%2F%3Ftracking%3Dsk%3Ahet%3Ask%3Anine%3A0%3Ahot%3Atext&_t=764565661&_r=OCT07_endtext_Future&_m=EXT>>
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                  • jsfosdickcsp
                    ... There are a lot of good comments in this thread already, but I have a couple thoughts one is more theoretical one is a practical answer to the original
                    Message 9 of 20 , Nov 7, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Graybill" <Mark@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > A debate has brewed here regarding a statement someone
                      > made that we are not really doing Scrum because we do
                      > not have a releasable product at the end of every Sprint.

                      There are a lot of good comments in this thread already, but I have a
                      couple thoughts one is more theoretical one is a practical answer to
                      the original question.

                      Whenever I hear someone, regardless of who it is, say, "You're not
                      doing Scrum because...," my initial response is always to evaluate the
                      understanding of Scrum implicit in the statement. Scrum has extremely
                      few moving parts. That fact makes it extremely flexible, but likewise
                      open to many different interpretations and, consequently, many
                      different ways to approach the use of Scrum in practice. Anyone making
                      such pronouncements should be cautious. Conversely it is possible to
                      adhere to the "letter of the law but not the spirit". Ultimately our
                      goal is to do software better. A slavish devotion to a particular
                      dogma is counterproductive to that aim (and is in fact what has plague
                      PMI style project management for decades).

                      Now in terms of the question asked I would say that the terms are in
                      adequately stated. What is meant by "releaseable product"? It strikes
                      me that there are crucial modfiers missing from that term. It should
                      read, "potentially releaseable product increment." It is an absurd
                      standard to suggest, if this is what's really meant, to have a
                      releaseable product at the end of every sprint. The first couple of
                      sprints Scrum frontloads architecture and infrastructure types of
                      tasks onto the backlog. Those are unlikely to result in a releaseable
                      product in all but the simplest systems.

                      So then is it simple pedantry to distinguish between "releaseable
                      product" and "potentially releaseable product increment"? I would say
                      no. A releaseable product is, by definition, "ready for primetime".
                      That is to say its ready for end users on will do something useful.
                      That is an end goal of the software development enterprise but it is
                      not an intermediate step. Conversely a "potentially releaseable
                      product increment" is a small piece of the system that does something,
                      no matter how small that something is, and which has been as
                      thoroughly vetted as possible with appropriate levels of design,
                      coding, unit testing, system testing and MAYBE integration testing.
                      There is no requirement, in my opinion, that it must do something
                      useful to the target user by itself.

                      Jimi Fosdick CSP
                      blog: scrumblog.scrumpractitioner.com
                    • Jeff Heinen
                      I ve found it useful to use the distinction of potentially releasable vs. sellable. Each sprint ends with a delivered product increment that is
                      Message 10 of 20 , Nov 7, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment

                        I’ve found it useful to use the distinction of “potentially releasable” vs. “sellable.”  Each sprint ends with a delivered product increment that is production-ready from a quality standpoint, and the PO could, at their discretion, choose to release it. That doesn’t mean that the product itself is sellable. The decision to actually release it would be contingent on the product having acquired enough business value to be “sellable.” The important point is that each sprint should end with the PO being able to make that choice.

                         

                        -Jeff H.

                         

                        From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jsfosdickcsp
                        Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 10:14 AM
                        To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Potentially releasable software

                         

                        --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Graybill" <Mark@...> wrote:

                        >
                        > A debate has brewed here regarding a statement someone
                        > made that we are not really doing Scrum because we do
                        > not have a releasable product at the end of every Sprint.

                        There are a lot of good comments in this thread already, but I have a
                        couple thoughts one is more theoretical one is a practical answer to
                        the original question.

                        Whenever I hear someone, regardless of who it is, say, "You're not
                        doing Scrum because...," my initial response is always to evaluate the
                        understanding of Scrum implicit in the statement. Scrum has extremely
                        few moving parts. That fact makes it extremely flexible, but likewise
                        open to many different interpretations and, consequently, many
                        different ways to approach the use of Scrum in practice. Anyone making
                        such pronouncements should be cautious. Conversely it is possible to
                        adhere to the "letter of the law but not the spirit". Ultimately our
                        goal is to do software better. A slavish devotion to a particular
                        dogma is counterproductive to that aim (and is in fact what has plague
                        PMI style project management for decades).

                        Now in terms of the question asked I would say that the terms are in
                        adequately stated. What is meant by "releaseable product"? It strikes
                        me that there are crucial modfiers missing from that term. It should
                        read, "potentially releaseable product increment." It is an absurd
                        standard to suggest, if this is what's really meant, to have a
                        releaseable product at the end of every sprint. The first couple of
                        sprints Scrum frontloads architecture and infrastructure types of
                        tasks onto the backlog. Those are unlikely to result in a releaseable
                        product in all but the simplest systems.

                        So then is it simple pedantry to distinguish between "releaseable
                        product" and "potentially releaseable product increment"? I would say
                        no. A releaseable product is, by definition, "ready for primetime".
                        That is to say its ready for end users on will do something useful.
                        That is an end goal of the software development enterprise but it is
                        not an intermediate step. Conversely a "potentially releaseable
                        product increment" is a small piece of the system that does something,
                        no matter how small that something is, and which has been as
                        thoroughly vetted as possible with appropriate levels of design,
                        coding, unit testing, system testing and MAYBE integration testing.
                        There is no requirement, in my opinion, that it must do something
                        useful to the target user by itself.

                        Jimi Fosdick CSP
                        blog: scrumblog.scrumpractitioner.com

                      • Michael James
                        ... Yes, exactly. Every feature shown should be done/done/done , not just the smoke and mirrors of untested code. Whether it s sufficiently feature rich to
                        Message 11 of 20 , Nov 7, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Heinen" <jheinen@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > I've found it useful to use the distinction of "potentially releasable"
                          > vs. "sellable."

                          Yes, exactly. Every feature shown should be "done/done/done", not
                          just the smoke and mirrors of untested code. Whether it's sufficiently
                          feature rich to release is a Product Owner call. Sometimes we need
                          a "stabilization Sprint" for polish, not deferred testing.

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