|WikiProject Method engineering (Inactive)|
|WikiProject Computing / Software||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Isn't that something all the methodology pages suffer to some extent? Jdmarshall 22:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Another question is whether this method should really belong to the family of agile methods - its more of a cut down traditional method than an agile manifesto type approach —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjeremyrose (talk • contribs) 11:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Although Agile software development practices have been evolving over the last decade, as one of the earlier Agile fameworks (and still in use) this is still recognized as an Agile methodology. Development by feature is now a common recommendation when scaling the Scrum methodology for example. Some parts of FDD conflict with other Agile methodologies (e.g. code ownership) and FDD does have a much heavier emphasis on design however the ethos and fundamental practices are aligned. In situations where significant cross-organizational scaling is required with highly complex interdependent applications, some experienced agile teams have found the design emphasis in FDD to be a better fit than (for example) Scrum & XP. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I see it as close enough to be part of any Agile discussion. This clearly belongs within the history of Agile manifesto's actual implementations. This technique's description needs to be preserved even if it falls out of favor. I would take the more inclusive approach and attempt to map backwards in time seeking all the paths of history that come together as Agile. I would also branch outward from Agile to scrap up any bits of information to know the successful and yet to be determined routes to the future. This will serve as a basis for the eventual reconstruction or replacement of Agile later. Johnswolter (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Tables 2 & 3 are currently displayed after the references. Although it's not natural for many casual readers to read that far down they are there. They're pretty big - where should these normally go? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The article isn't clear on when and how human testing takes place. If the features could take two weeks to develop, then is testing always lagging behind in subsequent development cycles? With scrum, the tendency is break work down into sub-features that take 2 *days* to develop, meaning that they can be tested and reviewed by the PO within the same development cycle. Non/less-iterative processes tend to do some/all of the development, followed by doing some/all of the testing. It would be helpful for someone who knows FDD to address this in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Feature-driven development. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071102073447/http://www.bettersoftwarefaster.com/index.htm to http://www.bettersoftwarefaster.com/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.
NB regarding Luca's site
It is listed in the outside links. We do not need to name drop it in every single section of the article. I have removed the sentences that do. If it needs to be referenced more properly take it from there. HRouillier (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)