Template talk:Software development process

message: It seems to me that this template belongs on all the pages in the activities and models section, but not always the supporting disciplines -- some of the latter, like Project management, are more general than software.  --David.alex.lamb 21:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to use this template 

message: Since eXtreme is an Agile method, why is it listed as a sub-process as opposed to say Scrum or any other other Agile methods and approaches? --Walter Görlitz 04:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only because it was much more commonly mentioned than other agile methods at the time I created the entry. If it is now no more common than any other, perhaps it should go -- but I'm not inclined to do so myself just yet. David.alex.lamb 07:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: XP = Agile

message: So what is the difference between Software development process and Management Information System...???＠＠???? --Ramu50 (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One describes a process exclusively for developing software; the other describes a process for managing information that may or may not include software development. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  confused with MIS 

message: I designed a new Software Engineering Template to replace this template, see Template talk:Software Engineering. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that it should replace this template. This template is about a multidisciplinary process that includes software engineering but is not summed up by software engineering. Software engineering describes a skill that evolves much faster than any one process. You are doing both software engineers and those who work with software engineers a disservice by trying to monopolize all the software development terminology under the umbrella of "software engineering."  Oicumayberight (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have responded on the Talk:Software engineering here -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can try to oversimplify it by saying that software engineering is the main discipline. I'm sure there are product developers and project managers that would disagree with you, but that's beside the point. The point is that software development is multidisciplinary. You're trying to pull the disciplines of "software development" that have little to do with engineering under the umbrella of "software engineering" as if those functions are a less important subclass of engineering. The article and the template are titled "software development process", not "software engineering process". You are just in denial that development is broader in scope than engineering. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I have responded on the Talk:Software engineering here -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This template was better the way it was because it laid it out in steps and was highly visible at the top for those who may have only been interested in a particular step. I know that software engineering is not a step-by-step process, so I think it's futile to have the software engineering template replace the software development process template. There should be two separate templates, one for the broader software development process and the other for the field or skill of software engineering. Your oversimplifying both subjects by merging the templates. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I have responded on the Talk:Software engineering here-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new Software Engineering Template 

message: A place of the template near the top is all right with me too. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The place of the template in the article 

message: The question I asked about the datamodel being listed is in fact part of problem I am working on to determine, what kind of diagrams/models exist in the field of software engineering in particular and computer science in general? For example
* I have raised the question here if the subjects of the Logical data model, Logical schema and Semantic data model are about one single subject, or if they are different. I just made a proposal to merge them in the Logical data model article, see Talk:Logical data model. 
* I am also active on WikiCommons, see for example here, where I have been restructuring all diagrams in the field of computer science.
No I haven't head an answer on the logical data model question yet? And why not? And why couldn't you give me a firm answer about datamodels should be listed or not? (I don't mean that you should have?)  
I think the main problem here is, that this is a rather undetermined field. There is no clear understanding and overview about models in software development. Now you have argued that I am trying to simplify things here. I am merely trying to get a more clear and differentiated view here. I think here is possible progress to be made. Some kind of overview could help!?
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Models in software development 

message: There is an other thing I don't understand in the listing of models in the template:
* Agile Cleanroom Data model Iterative RAD  RUP  Spiral  Waterfall XP Scrum  V-Model
They are all listed as models here. But for me there are two separate things:
* The models of the software development process: Spiral model, Waterfall model, V-Model
And the other items listed (exclusive datamodel), which I consider:
* Development methodes containing a model of the development process.   
This is a differentation, I am trying to make in the software egineering template. 
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Process development models and methods 

message: I already mentioned Jackson System Development as a Process development methods. Now I will like to take a closer look at what methods exist here. I was under the impression that there are dozends of them. I will get back on this.
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Process development methods 

message: Please comment on separate items and here with general comment. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further general comment 

message: I'm curious, is there any reason CMM/CMMi is not considered a software development process?  It seems to me that it is definitely a major player in the field.  I'll add it if there is no opposition.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topkai22 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been placed into the section Standards and BOKs. -- Softzen (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  CMM/CMMi 

message: Activities and Steps. There is not, and has never been, a shred of empirical evidence that software development work can be meaningfully divided into the activities and steps listed in this template. These steps are channeling a RUP/IBM/Plan-Driven worldview. They represent a hyper-rationalized, oversimplified view of development as translated from an idealized engineering process. There are several theories of the software development process – SCI Theory, FBS Framework, Boomerang – that could be drawn on to improve, but I don't know how to fix this without changing about 20 different articles. 
Methodologies. Scrum is a project management framework. TDD is a practice. XP is a method. Iterative is class of methods that includes basically all of them. Agile is a philosophy or worldview, and a fuzzy category of methods. V and Dual Vee are hypothetical, academic methods that have never had any significant uptake. Dumping all of these into the same category is misleading – it implies false equivalence. 
Supporting Disciplines. These look straight out of RUP to me. 
Anyone have any ideas for how to sort out this template? Paul Ralph (Lancaster University) (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: First, do not use [edit] link on a talk page unless you know what you are doing. Use the WP:+ feature. Misleading or not, but the  ambox should not be transcluded to articles, which could suggest problems with either article’s content or doubts about inclusion of the  navbox to a particular article, which are not the case. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Splitting up into a new section Paradigms and models seems a sound solution. Done. -- Softzen (talk) 12:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: This Template is Misleading

message: The Large Agile Framework Appropriate for Big, Lumbering Enterprises parody website that Mike Cohn released as an April Fool's joke some years back has made an appearance as an ostensibly valid link on the Scaled Agile Framework page and in the template for Software development processes. I have removed these with appropriate comments. Let's watch out for this coming back. Davidjcmorris  Talk  19:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  LAFABLE