--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tony Nassar
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I realize this thread had died, but...
>
> > I am not sure that BRUF can be given the full blame for it, but in all
> > our internal evaluations we score very low on requirement accuracy.
> > Also, the start-up of new projects seem to last forever. It feels
> > wasteful and demoralizing to the developers. (At least on my team)
>
> I'm on a contract right now at a gov't agency, and there's a reason
that I can only realease to production every 6 months: the
stakeholders won't allow it, because they regard releases as
destabilizing. This is to say, of course, that they would be horrified
by the very idea of continuous integration.
I'm not sure you meant to say that. Continuous
integration has little do to with frequent
releases.
At Microsoft, for example, major releases
are annual (I count most service packs as
major releases, even if they don't put
the release stamp on them) while most
development subteams hold code out of
the mainline for only one or two days.
Frankly, if they integrated on the same
schedule as their releases, they wouldn't
be here.
I rank them at around 8 on the integration
scale (10 being the somewhat mythical
system where every keystroke is integrated
when it's delivered.)
I also rank the typical phasist waterfall
"integrate everything in one big batch at
the end" as around 1 on the integration scale.
That's a prescription for "integration hell".
John Roth
To Post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extremeprogramming/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
