Christopher Smith wrote:
Any particular reason why you'd assume it'd be bad once you got in to maintenance mode?
I don't think it's particular *bad*. I just don't think it's particular *good*, either. And, using the C3 project for productivity measures is warped because it never really moved from development to maintenance.
XP was the first process which got *programmers* to accept the need for testing. It deserves a huge amount of praise for that.
Other than the Gospel of Testing, the rest of XP is pretty much a wash or a minus. Nothing in XP solves or even makes easier the management and communication issues. A bunch of feature cards does not documentation make. An on-site rep is still subject to lack of knowledge and politics.
And, while everybody harps, "Well, you're not doing XP!", I would argue that slavish adherence merely gains the benefit of "Any process done consistently is better than a perfect process done inconsistently or not at all."
I would argue that any group with the discipline to do XP would get the same benefit if it did SCRUM, AGILE, CMM, Waterfall, or any other process consistently.
-a -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
