Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
In software developement project..
While preparing a gantt chart, which things we should take care?
A very vague question, kind of like "What is the meaning of life?".
Things that occur to me:
Knowing what you will build
the order in which things have to be build,
resources required,
when things have to be finished,
who will have to check the build items,
when are people and resources available.
The WBS 100% rule (see this)
Where relevant, use abstract time units in the chart and scale to meet a fixed release date.
Don't overuse. Use it for what it's good for. For example, avoid showing too many dependencies: Draw out a separate dependency tree
If you have several tasks which are proving difficult to estimate then try to have them run in parallel. That way you reduce the overall risk should one or more of them overrun.
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I have two question for labview users. I'm quite new to this language, I would like to know if design like in the picture attached (extensive use of disable diagram structure) are:
a good practice to separate part of code (I like the structure input/computation/output)
does not imply extra computation time
labview disable structure
Thanks in advance!
PS: sorry I had to hide some code not my will...(licensed)
No, the code is compiled and disable structures are ignored. But the best practise is to use subVIs (with proper connector pane and icon) to structure input/computation/output.
Everything that is connected to the left of your subVI connector pane is input.
What you have in subVI is computation.
Everything that is connected to the right of your subVI connector pane is output.
Please have a look below:
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
So, I working on a problem at my workplace, that is a big company with a serious CNC shopfloor. Here I thought I could make the life much easier with a little software. I have the conception, I put a lot of work in it together with my helpful friends and here is the point, when I suppose to explain it to my leaders.
The problem is, I've never made anything like this before. So I don't know the way. I should use UML-diagrams and use cases, class diagrams etc? Or which is a preferred way?
Out of the management perspective you could explain why your programm is efficient and required to optimise the workflow. Creating a presentation could help you make the idea of the application clear and bring it in a form which is understandable.
If I were you I will go in priorities for activities diagram. You create an activity diagram of the old flow and another with the new flow. You show both to your manager and you compare them. Normally your program will minimise steps inside the new flow. Then you can say that with less steps to manage there will be more money to earn for your manager and you at the end :)
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
While using Gitflow, what is the reason for separating branch naming to feature vs bugfix vs hotfix?
I.e. why not just, for example, instead of:
feature/
bugfix/
hotfix/
Just do:
change/
What does separating by feature/bugfix/hotfix buy?
Great questions and the answer really depends on how you sort your git. The branching model and gitflow in general is trying to give us some order in the chaos that commits are just after a couple of days.
The image below shows you what they though makes most sense.
(As far as I know it all came from this blog post by Vincent Driessen)
Separating your hotfixes which merge directly into master and your bugfixes which merge into dev makes it easier to go with your product cycle.
The idea is you build your app, create features, make a release candidate (beta test) and then release your app. Hotfixs can be necessary at any time after this. No point in going back all the way to the feature branch and issuing a bug fix there as the feature may already been developed further.
Does that make sense?
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
I need to prepare a Software Requirements Specification Document for a small enhancement within an JAVA application.
I have tried goggling for the same but found the samples for whole application whereas I am preparing SRS for a small enhancement within an application.
Can anybody suggest the links or suggestions for preparing the SRS.
As you realized by yourself what you're asked isn't a Requirements Specification, which usually covers the whole set of requirements for a software.
What you've been asked is a Change Request, and it must be merged in the existing SRS. However something tells me that there's no SRS for the software you're dealing with, as your management doesn't know the difference between both...
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I am documenting a small itcl project. Due to shortcomings in itcl support in doxygen, and the fact that Ruff! does not support itcl, I am left with NaturalDocs and RoboDoc as the leading candidates. However, I don't want to pick an unsupported system, and was wondering which is going to be there in the long term?
What will be there in the long term? Who knows! It depends on how much people use it, really, as with all open source code systems. It should be noted that both the tools you refer to are really slow developing at this point: they do what they do and need little significant change to keep on doing it.
As far as I can see, ROBODoc requires that you do pretty much all the annotation work yourself, whereas NaturalDocs will derive a bit more for you. Not very much though; in particular, you will have to write plenty of annotations on things whichever route you use. (I've no particular experience with either though; I tend to prefer to maintain documentation in a separate file with something like doctools but that's a very different approach. I've also done nasty custom things in the past; you really don't want to use them.)