Roland Mainz writes:
> Chunk "A" ("CH(A)") is delivered as first piece, then chunks B-J are
> delivered "in parallel" (and likely in random order), followed by chunk
> "K" (which requires that chunks A-J have been delivered), then again
> followed by parallel delivery of chunks L-Y and then chunk Z (which
> again depends on whether chunks A-Y have been delivered).
>
> Is this possible from an ARC point of view ?
As long as you can describe both the dependencies and the delivered
architectural features, I see no problem with it.
> And if "yes" - is there any
> precedent ?
I don't know of any. Most projects I've seen try to simplify, both
for their own sake in terms of project planning, and for the sake of
getting a decent review.
If a reasonable plan (including the overhead of testing and reviews)
would be to deliver some of the subsets together, then I would have
those things reviewed as one project. You are expressing a tremendous
amount of flexibility in running all the tiny bits of a project as
separate little projects, but as has been observed with excess
complexity in other areas, "you ain't gonna need it." You're not
really planning a project with dozens of pushes, each with its own RTI
review, code review, design review, and testing, are you?
It's your call, and you can describe anything you want, but my advice
would be that if it's hard to understand, and the reviewers are likely
to spend more time talking about form than about function, then it
probably hasn't been factored correctly.
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com>
Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
