hiho,
I put an additional Capability Pattern in the OpenUP repository that is
not utilized in the delivery process. It has been checked into CVS and
it is in the repository available on the epf site in last week's
downloadable build of the OpenUP repository.
Based on the discussion in this email list and in some additional
meetings and calls, I created a Phase Iteration Template called
inception_phase_iteration_with_dev. It has the same elements as the
default inception_phase_iteration, but it adds in an instance of the
Capability Pattern: Develop Architecture as an activity named Develop
Architecture Spike. The activity is shown with the activity Agree on
Technical Approach as a predecessor.
In the Alternatives section of the phase iteration template I wrote:
This iteration template specifically includes activities around
developing a chunk of architecture to prove feasibility or investigate
some other risk area. In many projects there will not be a need to do
any detailed architecture or implementation work done to meet the
objectives of Inception. In those cases, those activities would be
excluded.
I have included the activity diagram below.
The CP: Develop Architecture includes the CP: Develop Solution
Increment. So this is an instance of an Inception iteration with some
development. How do people feel about including this in the repository?
Note that this does not change the default delivery process that is
published; people looking at the published OpenUP site won't even know
it is there. But it is in the repository so someone who is going to
publish the process can swap out the iteration template in their
delivery process and publish with it. In that way I feel more
comfortable saying "The default OpenUP instance does not happen to have
development in Inception, but it would be perfectly reasonable to do so;
you would just swap out the iteration template for the one supplied that
has development in it.
In this way, I think OpenUP is also a better example of an EPF process.
It is important to show that a process within the Eclipse Process
Framework can have various ways it can be applied.
How do people feel about my usage of the word "Spike"? The word spike
does not commonly appear in OpenUP, but it is used once in the middle of
Guideline: Staffing a Project.
It might be notable to some that I am only including development on
behalf of architecture. Does anyone feel that this is intolerable and
there should be an additional instance of Develop Solution Increment
that is not tied to the development of the architecture?
------------- b
<<image002.gif>>
_______________________________________________ epf-dev mailing list epf-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
