I see your concern. We don't want to be heavy handed when assigning elements to a discipline - for simplicity reasons and also because disciplines are supposed to organize tasks. Another possibility is to use custom categories - instead of disciplines which are standard categories - in order to organize these elements and create appropriate views for the published web site.
Still the question remains on how many elements are too many. Maybe this is a good topic for a break-out session during the next face-to-face meeting. Ricardo Balduino Senior Software Engineer IBM Rational (www.ibm.com/rational) EPF Committer (www.eclipse.org/epf) "Brian Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/04/2007 10:23 AM Please respond to Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List <[email protected]> To "Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List" <[email protected]> cc Subject [epf-dev] How Much Guidance Attached to Each Discipline? hiho, I added in the reference workflows and related guidance items to the Discipline: Test method element. I just went whole-hog and put in every guidance item related to the testing stuff. I wonder if that is too heavy handed. And something that won?t scale up. It might be nice for every work product to have a checklist; do all the checklists get thrown in the treeview under the discipline? It might be good to have a number of examples for each work product and organizations extending the process might have a number of examples per work product; should all that be thrown right under the discipline in the published process? This sounds like another authoring guideline that might not be a 100% common EPF authoring guideline, but an OpenUP-specific authoring rule. Either ?attach all guidelines related to a discipline to the discipline?. Or ?attach all guidelines except checklists that are specific to one method element? or ?attach all guidelines except any that are specific to one method element?. I suppose when we are saying that we could also be explicit to say ?attach to the discipline all capability patterns that utilize any task from the discipline?. And by that rule we would have Manage Requirements attached to both the requirements discipline and the testing discipline, which I think makes sense. BTW, bug 172732 discusses renaming that capability pattern. Any thoughts? ---------------- b _______________________________________________ epf-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
gifEeYaWvcVfV.gif
Description: GIF image
_______________________________________________ epf-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
