[Zope3-dev] Development methodology (Re: [Zope-CMF] Future CMF) (rant)
Lalo Martins
lalo@laranja.org
Mon, 7 Oct 2002 20:33:12 -0300
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 06:42:08PM -0400, R. David Murray wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Lalo Martins wrote:
>
> The use cases and Interface specs are as much a way of *thinking*
> about the problem (publicly) as they are a documentation requirement.
Perhaps they are. Then again perhaps they're not the best way of doing it.
> > And of course Zope3 development can't even tap the "need to fulfill" pool at
> > all, since it is hardly usable to fulfill any real-life need.
>
> True, but the more documentation we have when we *do* get to that
> point the faster those additional contributions will come in. And
> despite the doc requirements you bemoan, Zope3 is *not* documented
> well enough yet (IMO).
But not all the "documentation" we're producing will be usable for that.
What we're doing is process "documentation" in the sense of ISO9000, that's
why I made that reference. Some of it is interesting after the
implementation, but most of it isn't.
> > Additionally, most developers have little to no interest in commenting other
> > people's ideas before there is some code to test.
>
> I don't think this is true, either.
But history shows it is. Most projects that get a great volume of comments
actually take longer to get implemented because we lose ourselves in chat.
=======
Also, I do not claim the process I suggested is perfect. I only think the
process needs work, and made a *suggestion*. Other ideas are accepted. Or,
assuming I was following my own process, I would be in stage 0.
[]s,
|alo
+----
--
Those who trade freedom for security
lose both and deserve neither.
--
http://www.laranja.org/ mailto:lalo@laranja.org
pgp key: http://www.laranja.org/pessoal/pgp
Eu jogo RPG! (I play RPG) http://www.eujogorpg.com.br/
Python Foundry Guide http://www.sf.net/foundry/python-foundry/