Talk:Personal software process

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Software: Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

Advantage of Personal Software Process over extreme programming

Is there any connection between this PSP (Personal Software Process) and TSP (Team Software Process)?
Face 13:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, they are connected. --Ralph Corderoy 12:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

This entry seems rather inaccurate in that the main emphasis of PSP is to use self-collected data and statistical methods to establish practical personal process limits for effort estimation. Reviews and quality control are important, but mainly to serve the goal of controlling the overall process of development. Control in this context means being able to identify the expected range of effort and quality with a reasonable level of certainty. The emphasis is on predictability, not perfection. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.31.189 (talk • contribs) I agree. PSP is primarily, AFAIUI, concerned with building a statistical model of the coder's performance in order to better predict future performance. --Ralph Corderoy 12:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit! If you know a lot about a subject and feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. --Firien § 09:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

This statement from the opening:

 "more than 2/3 of the projects shipped were without any defects"

Seems preposterous on its face. Almost no software of any complexity is "without defects". It is probably more correct to say the projects met a certain quality bar. Most people involved in software would say that "perfect quality" is too expensive to be commercially feasible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.13.198 (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Exactly. Considering companies who have high quality standards such as Microsoft ship complex software with literally hundreds of uncovered bugs, we can almost conclude that the statement is a shameless self promotion, or a word play on the definition of "defect", or both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.243.169.73 (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have yet to find a software process that can even reliably determine whether a software system contains defects. How was this metric even determined? The PSP book is peppered with marketing-speak claims like this with no real citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansciath (talk • contribs) 21:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've been learning and using PSP and the claim that "2/3 of the projects shipped were without any defects" most probably means that there were no defects found in the testing phase. PSP attempts to find the bugs you introduce into your software early by having phases such as Design Review and Code Review in an effort to prevent bugs from getting to the testing phase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haxhia (talk • contribs) 11:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have had some experience with persons who work with PSP, and their definition is somewhat different from the idea that there are no defects in the code, literally. Rather, they define "defect free" as meaning that the customer did not report any defects. So, from the customer's perspective, the product was "defect free". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuadw (talk • contribs) 17:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Still, Microsoft updates everyday patches, updates... most of them only to correct bugs that were mostly discovered by customer! so even the last definition let me doubt that 2/3 of the projets were "defect free". Maybe 2/3 of the functionnalities, maybee --80.254.148.59 (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

There is no reason to believe that Microsoft (Redmond) uses PSP merely because Microsoft (India) reports great success with it. To determine whether the statement about 2/3 of the projects being defect-free is accurate you need to find out what projects were delivered by Microsoft (India).

Danfranklinusa (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Personal software process. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129020408/http://seicertification.clearmodel.com/get-certified/software-development/become-an-sei-certified-psp-developer/sei-certified-psp-developer-frequently-asked-questions/ to http://seicertification.clearmodel.com/get-certified/software-development/become-an-sei-certified-psp-developer/sei-certified-psp-developer-frequently-asked-questions/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply