[Interest] Interest Digest, Vol 114, Issue 42

[Roland Hughes]

On 3/28/21 12:54 PM, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> Il 28/03/21 13:54, Roland Hughes ha scritto:
>> There is documentation and Web pages that have
>> replicated all over stating Qt 5 supports RHEL 6. You made something
>> that cannot be effectively erased untrue.
> The documentation in question states that_specific_  Qt 5.x versions
> support RHEL 6. There's no such thing as "Qt 5 documentation".

And ___THAT___ is the documentation and glossies management looked at 
when it made the decision to use Qt in the first place. It got specified 
in the Software Architecture Document.

I know of no other package that thinks it is okay to drop platforms mid 
major release. Even Zinc didn't do that.

>> Management: "Qt 5 supports RHEL 6 and Qt has been around twenty years so
>> you will use Qt for the UI and much of the application."
>>
>> Developers: "Okay. You're the boss." [...]
> Wait, weren't you the guy saying that agile is bad and you should get
> 324 documents cross-checked and triple stamped before writing one single
> line of code? I assume "trust inaccurate hearsay" and "make gross
> generalization" are in those documents?
>
>
> Not amused at all,

You can be "no amused" all you want. The last two years with Qt have 
been a __complete__ debacle.

What do you think ___starts___ the process of creating The Four Holy 
Documents? A *Work Initiation Document*. It's a formal SDLC document 
that generally contains at least one, if not more, grouped 
requests/features management wants in the next release. From there the 
SDLC process follows:

 1.

    Business Requirements Document (BRD)

 2.

    System Requirements Document (SRD)

 3.

    System Architecture Document (SAD; a.k.a. System Architecture
    Specification or SAS)

 4.

    System Specification Document (SSD; a.k.a. Functional Specification;
    or System Functional Specification – SFS; or System Design
    Specification – SDS)


2&3 can, and often are, created side by side. *This* is where you find 
out that, unlike other major software products, mid-major-release 
number, platforms were dropped. That's when the conversation from System 
Architect and developers go back to management.

When management has already sold it to the customer and pre-spent their 
bonus check is when the relentless head slamming starts.

Yeah, I've been on the other side of that. Nothing like management 
promising features to the outside world without first checking with 
development. Usually promised in the next major release too. Back in 
2014 got to dynamically generate a spreadsheet image on a graphics scene 
that updated with real-time test data because someone had mocked up an 
image and promised customers a spreadsheet like display with angled 
headers and flick scrolling with zoom. All on an under powered embedded 
system.

That's how stuff like this happens in the real world. Nothing AGILE 
about it. Management decides what will be in the next release. If 
they've already sold it (and in most cases they have) there is no 
talking them out of it.

https://dilbert.com/search_results?terms=%22changes+are+free%22


-- 
Roland Hughes, President
Logikal Solutions
(630)-205-1593

http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com
http://www.infiniteexposure.net
http://www.johnsmith-book.com
http://www.logikalblog.com
http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog