4 ms·

I've seen #1 used many times to solve the problem of "too many regressions" with "the team just needs to communicate more" or "we should set up regular meetings

I've seen #1 used many times to solve the problem of "too many regressions" with "the team just needs to communicate more" or "we should set up regular meetings to deal with this issue". It was hard to argue that those teams weren't following both the message and spirit of the agile manifesto, as individuals and interactions were plainly taking precedence over tools and processes. It doesn't, after all, say "individuals and interactions over tools and processes, except when tools and processes make more sense".

TeMPOraL 9y ago
I think the proper understanding of those principles is "when in doubt, choose this over that", and not "always choose this over that". That said, the problem you described isn't really with the manifesto, but with people refusing to use common sense - or even more likely, with incentives within the organization being so aligned that decisionmakers benefit from making bad calls. It's something that happens surprisingly often.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  >I think the proper understanding of those principles is "when in doubt, choose this over that", and not "always choose this over that". That's exactly how the teams I worked with applied it. They were in doubt and they decided on individuals and interactions. >That said, the problem you described isn't really with the manifesto, but with people refusing to use common sense It absolutely is a problem with the manifesto and it isn't a common sense decision. Expending a not insignificant level of resources on automated regression testing and CI, or indeed, any other kind of tooling or process is far from a common sense decision - it's a pretty delicate trade off, in fact. Some tooling is worth it, some isn't. If the manifesto said "think carefully about tooling and recognize the delicate trade offs involved" then maybe the problem wouldn't be with the manifesto. It doesn't. It says "individuals and interactions over tools and processes". Ergo meetings > tools.

TeMPOraL 9y ago

I think the proper understanding of those principles is "when in doubt, choose this over that", and not "always choose this over that". That said, the problem you described isn't really with the manifesto, but with people refusing to use common sense - or even more likely, with incentives within the organization being so aligned that decisionmakers benefit from making bad calls. It's something that happens surprisingly often.

crdoconnor 9y ago
>I think the proper understanding of those principles is "when in doubt, choose this over that", and not "always choose this over that". That's exactly how the teams I worked with applied it. They were in doubt and they decided on individuals and interactions. >That said, the problem you described isn't really with the manifesto, but with people refusing to use common sense It absolutely is a problem with the manifesto and it isn't a common sense decision. Expending a not insignificant level of resources on automated regression testing and CI, or indeed, any other kind of tooling or process is far from a common sense decision - it's a pretty delicate trade off, in fact. Some tooling is worth it, some isn't. If the manifesto said "think carefully about tooling and recognize the delicate trade offs involved" then maybe the problem wouldn't be with the manifesto. It doesn't. It says "individuals and interactions over tools and processes". Ergo meetings > tools.