<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Breaking the Fractal V Lifecycle?	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://markstaples.com/2009/12/11/breaking-the-fractal-v-lifecycle/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://markstaples.com/2009/12/11/breaking-the-fractal-v-lifecycle/</link>
	<description>Software, research, and leadership</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Dec 2009 02:41:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Mark		</title>
		<link>https://markstaples.com/2009/12/11/breaking-the-fractal-v-lifecycle/#comment-59</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Dec 2009 02:41:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.markstaples.com/?p=153#comment-59</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://markstaples.com/2009/12/11/breaking-the-fractal-v-lifecycle/#comment-58&quot;&gt;liming&lt;/a&gt;.

I don&#039;t think of Plan-Do-Check as a lifecycle - it abstracts over levels of design abstraction, which are usually explicit in a lifecycle model.  But OK, I agree with your point - in the original V model, there&#039;s no explicit &quot;Check Your Plan&quot; activity, and if it&#039;s implicit, it&#039;s probably implicit within the &quot;Plan&quot; activity.
Still, I think if you admit the Fractal extensions to the V model, you are then free to think of a &quot;Check Your Plan&quot; activity as being either in the &quot;Plan&quot; activity (X)OR the &quot;Check&quot; activity.  I think the better choice is to regard the original V model &quot;Plan&quot; activities as really being little micro-V Plan/Do/Check(-Your-Plan) iterations with null &quot;Do&quot; steps.
At this point I feel like I&#039;m arguing about how many angels could fit on the head of a pin.  Maybe that&#039;s a sign that I&#039;m pushing this point of view a little too far!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://markstaples.com/2009/12/11/breaking-the-fractal-v-lifecycle/#comment-58">liming</a>.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think of Plan-Do-Check as a lifecycle &#8211; it abstracts over levels of design abstraction, which are usually explicit in a lifecycle model.  But OK, I agree with your point &#8211; in the original V model, there&#8217;s no explicit &#8220;Check Your Plan&#8221; activity, and if it&#8217;s implicit, it&#8217;s probably implicit within the &#8220;Plan&#8221; activity.<br />
Still, I think if you admit the Fractal extensions to the V model, you are then free to think of a &#8220;Check Your Plan&#8221; activity as being either in the &#8220;Plan&#8221; activity (X)OR the &#8220;Check&#8221; activity.  I think the better choice is to regard the original V model &#8220;Plan&#8221; activities as really being little micro-V Plan/Do/Check(-Your-Plan) iterations with null &#8220;Do&#8221; steps.<br />
At this point I feel like I&#8217;m arguing about how many angels could fit on the head of a pin.  Maybe that&#8217;s a sign that I&#8217;m pushing this point of view a little too far!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: liming		</title>
		<link>https://markstaples.com/2009/12/11/breaking-the-fractal-v-lifecycle/#comment-58</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[liming]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:39:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.markstaples.com/?p=153#comment-58</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[agree with your points. :-) I think the difference comes from how much one can &quot;re-interpret&quot; the right side of the original V when making it into W or fractal V. The right side of the original V means testing and it also means &quot;checking code against&quot; early life cycle corresponding artifacts, NOT checking early life cycle artifacts themselves.
One can certainly relax that into a general &quot;check&quot; of anything. :-) In that case, maybe the model should be called the fractal PDC (Plan-Do-Check).]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>agree with your points. 🙂 I think the difference comes from how much one can &#8220;re-interpret&#8221; the right side of the original V when making it into W or fractal V. The right side of the original V means testing and it also means &#8220;checking code against&#8221; early life cycle corresponding artifacts, NOT checking early life cycle artifacts themselves.<br />
One can certainly relax that into a general &#8220;check&#8221; of anything. 🙂 In that case, maybe the model should be called the fractal PDC (Plan-Do-Check).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
