Talk:Agile software development

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Computer science (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 

Song lyrics[edit]

I agree that the page needs to stay - however, what's with the parody song lyrics here? They shed no light on the subject and don't look very professional. (More "joke".)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.2.60 (talk) 19 April 2005

Parody song lyrics no longer included in the current version of the article. Spring (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

XP, Scrum, Crystal, etc. are Agile Methods[edit]

The History sections says: "Methodologies similar to Agile created prior to 2000—include Scrum (1986), Crystal Clear, Extreme Programming (1996), Adaptive Software Development, Feature Driven Development, and DSDM (1995)." However, according to p. 396 of Sommerville's Software Engineering textbook (reference 7 in the article), these methodologies are different types of agile methods. Will someone confirm this and make the change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.63.120 (talk) 19 November 2007

Good point. The history section has changed significantly since you posted this, and the current version seems to have fixed this. Spring (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Why is there no mention that this methodology gets most of its "new" ideas from the Free Software and/or Open Source development models used by those respective communities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.193.94.40 (talk) 9 December 2010


Because it is the other way around, AGILE was here well before the free software movement. 169.253.194.1 (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC) George E. Haney III, PMP, MPM, MCTS

Introduction is odd[edit]

"Agile software development is a group of software development methods based on iterative and incremental development.."

By the manifesto, as referenced later within the article, Agile software development is a set of values that partially order aspects of software development. These values may indeed be used to categorise methods but it is wrong to give the impression that Agile software development can be defined as a group of (think concrete set) development methods.

The Guide to Agile Practices[1] also explicitly states that some agile approaches do away with iterations and that it is also possible to use iterative strategies which are not also incremental. It is clear that although typical, agile software development is definitely not based on iterative and incremental development. Polyhydra (talk) 12:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on that Intro, are there any other methods than Agile? (please don't point to the Myth Waterfall method - I've never been anywhere that uses that, as it just doesn't make practical sense. ZhuLien 116.240.194.132 (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

NPOV?[edit]

This is like reading an ad for Agile. Things like: "Since then, the Agile Movement, with all its values, principles, methods, practices, tools, champions and practitioners, philosophies and cultures, has significantly changed the landscape of the modern software engineering and commercial software development in the Internet era"

Considering adding the NPOV template. Please discuss 188.207.125.243 (talk) 05:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I am here for the same reason. The article is an insult. It not only reads like a brochure, it even is illustrated like one, and a brochure for management at that, not for computer-literate readers or readers that wish to become computer-literate. Lots of handwaving and little substance. Those illustrations are the doo on the icing. I am removing the local one at least till someone tells me what they are to convey: that a member of their staff has an engaging smile? That software workers sit around monitors? Do us a favour! JonRichfield (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Obvious error[edit]

I am a technical writer learning about the Agile method from Wikipedia. I noticed what must be a typo. Change "Simplicity—the art of maximizing the amount of work not done—is essential" to Simplicity—the art of minimizing the amount of work not done—is essential" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.207.253.96 (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I am new here too, not a technical writer, but a long-time computer man. There is no reason to think that was a typo.
Think about it. It is poorly stated, but perfectly valid. You might find it helpful to consider the statement in the context of the following remarks dating back to the 1960s at the very least:
  • Creative laziness is essential to a good computer man;
  • Creative pathological laziness is essential to a great computer man.
Pathological laziness := compulsion to avoid work so obsessively, that it would have been less work to work. JonRichfield (talk) 06:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I can confirm that the "maximizing" phrasing is not a typo. This is a direct quote from the "Principles behind the Agile Manifesto", which is one of the seminal documents for Agile software development. Spring (talk) 01:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright policy[edit]

The article currently reproduces the complete text of the Agile Manifesto, including a copyright notice that is incompatible with Wikipedia copyright policy. The external links section already contains a link to the Agile Manifesto. The section on the manifesto should paraphrase the manifesto loosely or otherwise summarize its contents. --Boson (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The Manifesto specifically says "© 2001, the above authors. this declaration may be freely copied in any form, but only in its entirety through this notice."

Since there is the note on the webpage, and I think the creators of the Manifesto want it widely spread, I don't have any problem in leaving it in its entirety (as required) in the article. It's useful to have the text inline, instead of having to click to read it. Clemwang (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

As I see it, we can reproduce material that
  1. is released in a form compatible with CC-BY-SA (which permits modification etc.) or
  2. is a fair use quotation (which would not normally permit quotation of the whole document).
The copyright holder explicitly states "but only in its entirety through this notice", essentially releasing the work under CC-BY-ND, meaning that neither condition is fulfilled. According to the Creative Commons license article, CC-BY-NC and CC-BY-ND "are not free content licenses, according to definitions such as DFSG or the Free Software Foundation's standards, and cannot be used in contexts that require these freedoms, such as Wikipedia".
If the copyright holders want it spread widely by means of Wikipedia, they should release it appropriately. --Boson (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)