Search Results

Search found 8264 results on 331 pages for 'agile platform'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 36/331 | < Previous Page | 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43  | Next Page >

  • Is hierarchical product backlog a good idea in TFS 2012-2013?

    - by Matías Fidemraizer
    I'd like to validate I'm not in the wrong way. My team project is using Visual Studio Scrum 2.x. Since each area/product has a lot of kind of requirements (security, user interface, HTTP/REST services...), I tried to manage this creating "parent backlogs" which are "open forever" and they contain generic requirements. Those parent backlogs have other "open forever" backlogs, and/or sprint backlogs. For example: HTTP/REST Services (forever) ___ Profiles API (forever) ________ POST profile (forever) _______________ We need a basic HTTP/REST profiles' API to register new user profiles (sprint backlog) Is it the right way of organizing the product backlog? Note: I know there're different points of view and that would be right for some and wrong for others. I'm looking for validation about if this is a possible good practice on TFS with Visual Studio Scrum.

    Read the article

  • What level/format of access should be given to a client to the issue tracking system?

    - by dukeofgaming
    So, I used to think that it would be a good idea to give the customer access to the issue tracking system, but now I've seen that it creates less than ideal situations, like: Customer judging progress solely on ticket count Developers denied to add issues to avoid customer thinking that there is less progress Customer appointing people on their side to add issues who don't always do a good job (lots of duplicate issues, insufficient information to reproduce, and other things that distract people from doing their real job) However, I think customers should have access to some indicators or proof that there is progress being done, as well as a right to report bugs. So, what would be the ideal solution to this situation?, specially, getting out of or improving the first situation described?

    Read the article

  • What is the next promotion for a scrum master

    - by gnebar
    I'm currently a scrum master. I have been offered a promotion to a role that will allow me to have a wider impact. (more involved in company wide architectural decisions, possible secondment to kick start major projects, etc). The role and title of the job has yet to be decided but my company are open to guidance from me. I'm happy I can mould the role to suit me and the company but I'm unsure about the job title that fits this role. Technical Evangelist has been suggested but i'm not sure that is the correct title. I'm keen to proceed down the technical route. What would you suggest? What other roles do people take after scrum master/technical lead? EDIT: (I am aware that my current role is a mix of a technical lead and scrum master role, but that's how we do it in my company :) )

    Read the article

  • How to approach scrum task burn down when tasks have multiple peoples involvement?

    - by AgileMan
    In my company, a single task can never be completed by one individual. There is going to be a separate person to QA and Code Review each task. What this means is that each individual will give their estimates, per task, as to how much time it will take to complete. The problem is, how should I approach burn down? If I aggregate the hours together, assume the following estimate: 10 hrs - Dev time 4 hrs - QA 4 hrs - Code Review. Task Estimate = 18hrs At the end of each day I ask that the task be updated with "how much time is left until it is done". However, each person generally just thinks about their part of it. Should they mark the effort remaining, and then ADD the effort estimates to that? How are you guys doing this? UPDATE To help clarify a few things, at my organization each Task within a story requires 3 people. Someone to develop the task. (do unit tests, ect...) A QA specialist to review task (they primarily do integration and regression tests) A Tech lead to do code review. I don't think there is a wrong way or a right way, but this is our way ... and that won't be changing. We work as a team to complete even the smallest level of a story whenever possible. You cannot actually test if something works until it is dev complete, and you cannot review the quality of the code either ... so the best you can do is split things up into small logical slices so that the bare minimum functionality can be tested and reviewed as early into the process as possible. My question to those that work this way would be how to burn down a "task" when they are setup this way. Unless a Task has it's own sub-tasks (which JIRA doesn't allow) ... I'm not sure the best way to accomplish tracking "what's left" on a daily basis.

    Read the article

  • Windows Azure Platform for Enterprises

    Cloud computing has already proven worthy of attention from established enterprises and start-ups alike. Most businesses are looking at cloud computing with more than just idle curiosity. As of this writing, IT market research suggests that most enterprise IT managers have enough resources to adopt cloud computing in combination with on-premises IT capabilities.

    Read the article

  • Windows Azure Platform for Enterprises

    Cloud computing has already proven worthy of attention from established enterprises and start-ups alike. Most businesses are looking at cloud computing with more than just idle curiosity. As of this writing, IT market research suggests that most enterprise IT managers have enough resources to adopt cloud computing in combination with on-premises IT capabilities.

    Read the article

  • Web App vs Portal Platform - convincing the customer

    - by shinynewbike
    We're evaluating a set of requirements for a customer who wants Liferay which mainly has AAA and Web CMS requirements, and allowing user to upload their own content. Also all inetgration is via web services. However there is no need for other features such as actual "portlets", i18n, mashups, skins, themes, tagging, social presence, no collaboration etc So we feel we can do this as a standard JEE web app and not use Liferay (or any other portal product) since these are overheads we dont need. The customer feels the Web CMS requirements + user upload justify the "portal" product. Can anyone help me with some points to convince the customer? Assuming our point of view is right.

    Read the article

  • Mixing JavaFX, HTML 5, and Bananas with the NetBeans Platform

    - by Geertjan
    The banana in the image below can be dragged. Whenever the banana is dropped, the current date is added to the viewer: What's interesting is that the banana, and the viewer that contains it, is defined in HTML 5, with the help of a JavaScript and CSS file. The HTML 5 file is embedded within the JavaFX browser, while the JavaFX browser is embedded within a NetBeans TopComponent class. The only really interesting thing is how drop events of the banana, which is defined within JavaScript, are communicated back into the Java class. Here's how, i.e., in the Java class, parse the HTML's DOM tree to locate the node of interest and then set a listener on it. (In this particular case, the event listener adds the current date to the InstanceContent which is in the Lookup.) Here's the crucial bit of code: WebView view = new WebView(); view.setMinSize(widthDouble, heightDouble); view.setPrefSize(widthDouble, heightDouble); final WebEngine webengine = view.getEngine(); URL url = getClass().getResource("home.html"); webengine.load(url.toExternalForm()); webengine.getLoadWorker().stateProperty().addListener( new ChangeListener() { @Override public void changed(ObservableValue ov, State oldState, State newState) { if (newState == State.SUCCEEDED) { Document document = (Document) webengine.executeScript("document"); EventTarget banana = (EventTarget) document.getElementById("banana"); banana.addEventListener("click", new MyEventListener(), true); } } }); It seems very weird to me that I need to specify "click" as a string. I actually wanted the drop event, but couldn't figure out what the arbitrary string was for that. Which is exactly why strings suck in this context. Many thanks to Martin Kavuma from the Technical University of Eindhoven, who I met today and who inspired me to go down this interesting trail.

    Read the article

  • Are there any arguments that can make a contractor reconsider working on fixed price ?

    - by julien
    I've been working for a contractor who brings in some good projects, but they are all fixed-price and often fixed-time. As a result he always has me making a quote over loose requirements, which never fails to bring a lot of tension due to feature creep. He claims he'd never get a contract if he couldn't agree on a price with his clients first, but as far as I'm concerned I don't wanna go through another project under these terms. Is there any argument I could make to have him pay me by the hour, or should I just suck less at estimating ?

    Read the article

  • What modelling technique do you use for your continuous design?

    - by d3prok
    Together with my teammates, I'm trying to self-learn XP and apply its principles. We're successfully working in TDD and happily refactoring our code and design. However we're having problems with the overall view of the design of the project. Lately we were wondering what would be the "good" practices for an effective continuous design of the code. We're not strictly seeking the right model, like CRC cards, communication diagrams, etc., instead we're looking for a technique to constantly collaborate on the high level view of the system (not too high though). I'll try to explain myself better: I'm actually interested in the way CRC cards are used to brainstorm a model and I would mix them with some very rough UML diagrams (that we already use). However, what we're looking for are some principles for deciding when, how and how much to model during our iterations. Have you any suggestion on this matter? For example, when your teammates and you know you need a design session and how your meetings work?

    Read the article

  • Project Management Techniques (high level)

    - by Sam J
    Our software dev team is currently using kanban for our development lifecycles, and, from the reasonably short experience of a few months, I think it's going quite well (certainly compared to a few months ago when we didn't really have a methodology). Our team, however, is directed to do work defined by project managers (not software project managers, just general business), and they're using the PMBOK methodology. Question is, how does a traditional methodology like PMBOK, Prince2 etc fit with a lean software development methodology like kanban or scrum? Is it just wasting everyone's time as all the requirements are effectively drawn up to start with (although inevitably changed along the way)?

    Read the article

  • Code review vs pair programming

    - by mericano1
    I was wondering what is the general idea about code review and pair programming. I do have my own opinion but I'd like to hear from somebody else as well. Here are a few questions, please give me your opinion even on some of the point First of all are you aware of way to measure the effectiveness of this practices? Do you think that if you pair program, code reviews are not necessary or it's still good to have them both? Do you think anybody can do code review or maybe is better done by seniors only? In terms of productivity do you think it suffers from pairing all the times or you will eventually get in back in the long run? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • What arguments can I use to "sell" the BDD concept to a team reluctant to adopt it?

    - by S.Robins
    I am a bit of a vocal proponent of the BDD methodology. I've been applying BDD for a couple of years now, and have adopted StoryQ as my framework of choice when developing DotNet applications. Even though I have been unit testing for many years, and had previously shifted to a test-first approach, I've found that I get much more value out of using a BDD framework, because my tests capture the intent of the requirements in relatively clear English within my code, and because my tests can execute multiple assertions without ending the test halfway through - meaning I can see which specific assertions pass/fail at a glance without debugging to prove it. This has really been the tip of the iceberg for me, as I've also noticed that I am able to debug both test and implementation code in a more targeted manner, with the result that my productivity has grown significantly, and that I can more easily determine where a failure occurs if a problem happens to make it all the way to the integration build due to the output that makes its way into the build logs. Further, the StoryQ api has a lovely fluent syntax that is easy to learn and which can be applied in an extraordinary number of ways, requiring no external dependencies in order to use it. So with all of these benefits, you would think it an easy to introduce the concept to the rest of the team. Unfortunately, the other team members are reluctant to even look at StoryQ to evaluate it properly (let alone entertain the idea of applying BDD), and have convinced each other to try and remove a number of StoryQ elements from our own core testing framework, even though they originally supported the use of StoryQ, and that it doesn't impact on any other part of our testing system. Doing so would end up increasing my workload significantly overall and really goes against the grain, as I am convinced through practical experience that it is a better way to work in a test-first manner in our particular working environment, and can only lead to greater improvements in the quality of our software, given I've found it easier to stick with test first using BDD. So the question really comes down to the following: What arguments can I use to really drive the point home that it would be better to use StoryQ, or at the very least apply the BDD methodology? Can you point me to any anecdotal evidence that I can use to support my argument to adopt BDD as our standard method of choice? What counter arguments can you think of that could suggest that my wish to convert the team efforts to BDD might be in error? Yes, I'm happy to be proven wrong provided the argument is a sound one. NOTE: I am not advocating that we rewrite our tests in their entirety, but rather to simply start working in a different manner for all future testing work.

    Read the article

  • How to estimate effort required to convert a large codebase to another language/platform

    - by Justin Branch
    We have an MFC C++ program with around 200,000 lines of code in it. It's pretty much finished. We'd like to hire someone to convert it to work for Macs, but we are not sure how to properly estimate a reasonable timeline for this project. What techniques can we use to estimate what it would take to convert this project to work on a Mac? Also, is there anything in particular we should be watching out for specific to this sort of conversion?

    Read the article

  • preseeded installation keeps asking for confirmation while creating RAID-Partitions on certain hardware-platform

    - by Marc Shennon
    I am aware of the partman-md/confirm_nooverwrite thing, that was the solution to most of this problems in the past. The thing is, that the preseed-file works for almost all hardware-platforms I tested, but only for one (Primergy MX130) it keeps asking for confirmation, before writing the partition-layout to the disks. All machines I tested are running with two SATA Disks, nothing special. I'm not really sure, what information could be needed in order to investigate the cause of this behaviour, but I would of course be willing to provide more information, if someone has an idea. Relevant part of the preseed file is the following: d-i partman-auto/disk string /dev/sda /dev/sdb d-i partman-auto/method string raid d-i partman-md/confirm boolean true d-i partman-partitioning/confirm_write_new_label boolean true d-i partman-md/device_remove_md boolean true d-i partman/choose_partition select finish d-i partman-md/confirm_nooverwrite boolean true # Write the changes to disks? d-i partman/confirm boolean true d-i mdadm/boot_degraded boolean true # RECIPE # Next you need to specify the physical partitions that will be used. d-i partman-auto/expert_recipe string \ multiraid :: \ 500 10000 1000000000 raid $lvmignore{ }\ $primary{ } \ method{ raid } \ . \ 512 1000 786 raid $lvmignore{ }\ $primary{ } \ method{ raid } \ . \ 8192 10240 10240 raid $lvmignore{ }\ method{ raid } \ . # Parameters are: # <raidtype> <devcount> <sparecount> <fstype> <mountpoint> <devices> <sparedevices> d-i partman-auto-raid/recipe string \ 1 2 0 ext4 / /dev/sda1#/dev/sdb1 . \ 1 2 0 ext2 /boot /dev/sda2#/dev/sdb2 . \ 1 2 0 swap - /dev/sda5#/dev/sdb5 .

    Read the article

  • AMP 3.0 Mobility Platform

    Early adopter program available for Antenna's next-generation blend of AMP and Concert development environments Antenna - Radio - Shopping - Business - Telecommunication

    Read the article

  • Feature Driven Development in the work place?

    - by FXquincy
    Question Please explain Feature Driven Development in a nutshell? Situation My Business Analyst calls their documentation FDD, but it just seems overwhelmed by details. In a Nutshell An 'in a nutshell' example would be good, since I'm trying to reduce unnecessary detail and confusion. I want to add clarity, and an Occam's' razor approach to the documentation. Thanks for your help, Here's what I found

    Read the article

  • Mobile: Physics and movement actions

    - by meganegora
    I've been using spritekit for a while for a few small games. One thing I've noticed is that spritekit is the first game framework I've used that allows me to apply move actions to physics bodies. (without anything screwing up at least.) Are there any cross platform game frameworks I can use that allow move actions on physics bodies? Not impulses. I've used cocos2d in the past and when I tried ccmoveby on physics bodies the simulation would get totally confused. I rather not use cocos2d anyway. I'm asking because I want to make cross platform games and spritekit is iOS only.

    Read the article

  • IBM Reinvents x86 Platform with eX5 Servers

    The amount of data involved in the average Web-based workload today doubles every year, increasing costs and straining IT resources. The traditional response to this dilemma from IT organizations is to throw more servers at the problem, which furthers server sprawl and increases power and management costs. As a result, the typical x86 server is only running at 10 percent utilization.

    Read the article

  • IBM Reinvents x86 Platform with eX5 Servers

    The amount of data involved in the average Web-based workload today doubles every year, increasing costs and straining IT resources. The traditional response to this dilemma from IT organizations is to throw more servers at the problem, which furthers server sprawl and increases power and management costs. As a result, the typical x86 server is only running at 10 percent utilization.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43  | Next Page >