William Chops Westfield wrote:
>> That was my point exactly. Agile makes sense.
>>
> Having documentation makes sense too.  If it's accurate and well
> written.

"Agile" does not mean "no documentation". In fact, with Agile, you're much 
more likely to end up with accurate, up-to-date documentation that reflects 
the actual code. I can explain how and why it's better than writing the docs 
upfront, but you need to tell me you want to hear it. :)

> You can come up with any number of "methods" that seem to make sense but
> don't necessarily work.  See my recent flame about ISO9000...

True, but not a good reason not to look into Agile.

> I may have to read up on this stuff.  But...
>
>> As short as one week, and as long as 2 months.
>>
> So exactly how does that interact with the HW team and its 9-month+ ASIC
> turnaround time?

I don't understand what you're asking. HW team has ways to test the code 
before they put it in the ASIC, no?

> One of the big things I observed at cisco is that the same sort of
> development, management, and individual strategies that work really
> well for "small projects" don't work nearly so well for "large"
> projects (and vis versa, which is largely (and sadly) unrecognized.)
> "Small" means the whole team can go out to lunch and talk together;
> "large" is bigger than that.

Agile was originally designed for small teams. There are allegedly ways to 
scale it up, but I haven't looked into it.

Vitaliy

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist