alesha@attc.UUCP (Alec Sharp) (02/11/91)
All the voluminous correspondence about code inspections is very interesting, but I'm intrigued about reviews in the earlier part of the process. There are various checkpoints to satisfy in the traditional process: Requirements spec Analysis Functional Spec Users Guide High level design Low level design Test plans Implementation Testing (not necessarily in the order shown). To avoid wasting time detecting and correcting errors at later stages in the game, we're told to review each component before going on to the next one (a certain amount of parallelism seems to be acceptable). However, I've never seen a consistent description of the order these documents should be produced and reviewed. Does anyone have experience with the process shown above? If so, which documents did you create, in what order, and when did you review them? Alec Sharp alesha@auto-trol.com -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Alec Sharp Auto-trol Technology Corporation alesha@auto-trol.com 12500 North Washington Street (303) 252-2229 Denver, CO 80241-2404
jls@yoda.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) (02/15/91)
If you do not allow for iteration and feedback in your methodology, you will come to grief. The traditional lifecycle model is too inflexible, and assumes omniscience for proper results.