headers
Hillel Glazer, Entinex, The Technology Strategy Company | 1 Oct 2003 01:34

Re: CMM(I) and XP

(Sorry, folks, about the lazy subject line earlier.)

Alistair, your 2 points may be true, but that's a different matter from
whether or not these 'compliance' criteria /can/ be met.

--
Hillel Glazer, Principal
Entinex
The Technology Strategy Company
O-

----- Original Message ----- 
Sent: Tuesday, 30 September, 2003 07:06
Subject: [XP] Digest Number 3657
   Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 07:17:46 -0000
   From: "aacockburn" <acockburn <at> aol.com>
Subject: Re: Digest Number 3653

--- In extremeprogramming <at> yahoogroups.com, "Hillel Glazer, Entinex,
The Technology Strategy Company" <online <at> e...> wrote:
> CMM/CMMI is big on "institutionalizing" the processes within an
organization.  That just means making sure that people know what to
do, how to do it, and when.
> But in brass tacks... if I were appraising an XP shop, here's how
it would go down:
> - "if a new hire comes in that's never done XP, how do you teach
them XP and about the management of the projects?"
> - "what materials or approach do you use to train the new hires?"
>
> in CMMI, the separation in monitoring needs only be as "far" as
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
aacockburn | 1 Oct 2003 02:05
Picon
Favicon

Re: Digest Number 3653

--- In extremeprogramming <at> yahoogroups.com, yahoogroups <at> j... wrote:
--- In extremeprogramming <at> yahoogroups.com, yahoogroups <at> j... wrote:
> I seem to remember a paper by Kent Beck with the rather interesting
> title: "Are you being XPed On?" that set out a set of criteria that 
he could
> use simply by walking into the team's room.

Anyone know where this article is now? I couldn't find it just now. 
It would be nice if those criteria could be used by other people.

Your much more important point, which I had completely overlooked, is 
this:

> CMMi (and CMM) don't care whether
> you're using a name brand methodology or not. If the auditor
> is doing his job, the only effect of someone saying "I'm using
> XP" (or "I'm using fubar", or whatever) is that he can pull a
> list of things out of his back pocket that are known trouble
> spots with that methodology. Otherwise, it simply shouldn't
> matter.

We ask whether XP can be assessed at CMMi level 3, but the correct 
question, which keeps slipping my mind, is that assessment is done of 
the team, not the methodology description.

Therefore, the team wouldn't say to the assessor: "We're doing XP." 
They would say, "We're doing xxxx and yyyyy and zzzz." and by 
coincidence those might (or might not) be canonical XP. The assessor 
will only check whether they do what they say, in the CMMi checking 
format.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Robert Blum | 1 Oct 2003 02:23
Picon

Re: Digest Number 3653

Hi Alistair!

> > I seem to remember a paper by Kent Beck with the rather interesting
> > title: "Are you being XPed On?" that set out a set of criteria that 
> he could
> > use simply by walking into the team's room.
> 
> Anyone know where this article is now? I couldn't find it just now. 
> It would be nice if those criteria could be used by other people.

It's right here:
:)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extremeprogramming/files/Are%20You%20Getting%20XPd%20On.pdf

 - Robert

--

-- 
NEU FÜR ALLE - GMX MediaCenter - für Fotos, Musik, Dateien...
Fotoalbum, File Sharing, MMS, Multimedia-Gruß, GMX FotoService

Jetzt kostenlos anmelden unter http://www.gmx.net

+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More! +++

To Post a message, send it to:   extremeprogramming <at> eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: extremeprogramming-unsubscribe <at> eGroups.com

ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
yahoogroups | 1 Oct 2003 02:41

Re: Digest Number 3653


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "aacockburn" <acockburn.at.aol.com <at> yahoogroups.at.jhrothjr.com>
To: "extremeprogramming <at> yahoogroups.com"
<extremeprogramming.at.yahoogroups.com <at> yahoogroups.at.jhrothjr.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 8:05 PM
Subject: Re: [XP] Digest Number 3653

> --- In extremeprogramming <at> yahoogroups.com, yahoogroups <at> j... wrote:
> --- In extremeprogramming <at> yahoogroups.com, yahoogroups <at> j... wrote:
> > I seem to remember a paper by Kent Beck with the rather interesting
> > title: "Are you being XPed On?" that set out a set of criteria that
> he could
> > use simply by walking into the team's room.

> Anyone know where this article is now? I couldn't find it just now.
> It would be nice if those criteria could be used by other people.

It's in the files section of this group.

> Your much more important point, which I had completely overlooked, is
> this:
>
> > CMMi (and CMM) don't care whether
> > you're using a name brand methodology or not. If the auditor
> > is doing his job, the only effect of someone saying "I'm using
> > XP" (or "I'm using fubar", or whatever) is that he can pull a
> > list of things out of his back pocket that are known trouble
> > spots with that methodology. Otherwise, it simply shouldn't
> > matter.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
James Grenning | 1 Oct 2003 05:46

Re: Necessary comments?

--- In extremeprogramming <at> yahoogroups.com, Curtis Cooley 
<curtis <at> r...> wrote:
> > 
> Even if you can agree that method level comments are necessary, I 
don't 
> believe that the comments will stay relevant past a couple of 
revisions 
> of the code. It's difficult enough under pressure to maintain the 
> discipline to test first. I've just seen too much source code 
where the 
> method comment, when compared to the code it comments, seems to 
have 
> been generated randomly.
> -- 
> Curtis R Cooley
> curtis <at> r...

Hi Curtis

I'd also like to add that I think method level comments are a throw 
back to procedural programming, where the method (or the function) 
was the only thing to comment (okay, you could comment data 
structures too).

In OO programming a class responsibility comment is normally the 
most that is needed.  Method names and parameters should then speak 
for themselves.  I've seen companies that mandate big fill in the 
form style of comments on top of every method.  They are worse than 
useless while they hide the code.  At least witht he current IDE's 
the comments font and color can be set to fade away next to the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 14 comments |
headers
raveendraiah | 1 Oct 2003 06:18
Picon
Favicon

www.cutter.com)

Nancy:

Thanks for the reply. I am also going thought your document posted in 
the web site.

After going through, your document these are questions, I want to 
ask. Also please understand these thoughts are due to my limited 
knowledge about the process. 

1.Why do you choose the XP leaving other SEI-CMM/Agile processing?
2.Based my friend's conversation, the XP is Nightly Build
feature. 
Means the builds are done at the end of the day
3.Based on my observation, XP is suitable for small projects. Is this 
true?
4.Have ever noticed the all process models will have same impacts
5.Also my friend (Java start-up) says, most of documentation is 
update, as we progress during project. 
6.How does XP allow catching BUGS at the early stages?
7.When you started, your project, you could NOT able to estimate 
project properly, but after XP in place, your task was easy for 
project estimation. How did XP help you?
8.Also, my friend told me the architecture/design would change as 
project, proceeds further.  This is entirely different from SE-CMM, 
water flow model. You also mentioned that, some how the Spiral model 
is discontinued, after you started using the XP.
9.For doing "pair programming", do not you think the
programmers 
should able to co-ordinate with each other.
10.How do you streamline the embedded project with XP?. As you know,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 11 comments |
headers
Nancy Van Schooenderwoert | 1 Oct 2003 06:49
Picon
Favicon

Re: Re: Embedded XP

On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 17:59, Phlip wrote:
> > YES! I have successfully used XP with my embedded team. We were using a
> > new CPU and all new hardware and XP practices really helped to control
> > bugs and general chaos!
> >  - Nancy V
> 
> Can you compare the experience to one using Brand X instead of XP?
> 
> -- 
>   Phlip
> 
  I'm not sure I understand your question.  - Nancy V

To Post a message, send it to:   extremeprogramming <at> eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: extremeprogramming-unsubscribe <at> eGroups.com

ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Phlip | 1 Oct 2003 06:57
Favicon

Re: Re: Embedded XP

>   I'm not sure I understand your question.  - Nancy V

It's the same as Ron's.

We like success stories.

(The failure stories tend to focus on gaps that XP very rapidly pinpointed
;-)

If, for example, you used Waterfall or Spiral or Code and Fix on your last
project, and XP on this one, elaborate: What was the biggest difference? the
biggest surprise?

--
  Phlip
    http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?TestFirstUserInterfaces

To Post a message, send it to:   extremeprogramming <at> eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: extremeprogramming-unsubscribe <at> eGroups.com

ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
raveendraiah | 1 Oct 2003 07:21
Picon
Favicon

Re: Embedded XP

Phil:

If you read the article, it's clear, she was using the Spiral model, 
before they got into XP. This really nice article

-------------------------------------------
Nancy  has a good experience paper on
transitioning to XP in an embedded environment -
http://www.cutter.com/itjournal/xp.html.

---------------------------------------------
--- In extremeprogramming <at> yahoogroups.com, "Phlip" <plumlee <at> s...> 
wrote:
> >   I'm not sure I understand your question.  - Nancy V
> 
> It's the same as Ron's.
> 
> We like success stories.
> 
> (The failure stories tend to focus on gaps that XP very rapidly 
pinpointed
> ;-)
> 
> If, for example, you used Waterfall or Spiral or Code and Fix on 
your last
> project, and XP on this one, elaborate: What was the biggest 
difference? the
> biggest surprise?
> 
> --
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Nancy Van Schooenderwoert | 1 Oct 2003 07:43
Picon
Favicon

Re: Embedded XP, was Re: XP assumption, was Re: "Code must be commented"

On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 18:03, Ron Jeffries wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 30, 2003, at 5:20:27 PM, Nancy Van Schooenderwoert wrote:
> 
> > YES! I have successfully used XP with my embedded team. We were using a
> > new CPU and all new hardware and XP practices really helped to control
> > bugs and general chaos!
> 
> Wow, tell us more, tell us EVERYTHING!
> 
> Ron Jeffries

  That's a tall order. I'll tell you almost EVERYTHING and let you ask
further about the areas that interest you. First, I want to thank you,
Ron - I attended your XP talk at SD west in spring of 2000, and that's
when I turned on to XP.

  In 1999 I got my embedded software project staffed at a large company
in the Boston area. At the time I knew nothing of XP, but I was
determined to apply good practices I'd picked up in the school of hard
knocks, as they call it. I instituted strong unit tests for each module,
coding standards, source code management, common code ownership,
frequent code reviews (more as knowledge sharing than as a police
action), solid build control, and iterative development. I was also very
conscious of good naming & shared design concepts - i.e. we were using
what XP calls 'metaphor'. 

  This all worked quite well. We didn't have anything like the Planning
Game; I just tried to figure out what should go in each release and get
them out as regularly as I could. I was doing most of the estimating but
I wanted the others to learn how. Our bug rates were very low - about 1
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 16 comments |

Gmane