From: "John R. Strohm" <strohm@airmail.net>
Subject: Re: Enforcing good software process
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 15:15:20 -0500
Date: 2003-04-25T15:15:20-05:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <18CAFECC8191AA43.5AEFBE8E99D3F534.A23FE22EA2EB6297@lp.airnews.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: uu1cmfw37.fsf_-_@nasa.gov
"Stephen Leake" <Stephe.Leake@nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:uu1cmfw37.fsf_-_@nasa.gov...
> I'd much prefer CMM level 3 or above, independent of language.
The only difference between CMM level 2 and CMM level 3 is this: At CMM
level 2, every project at a company is using *A* defined, published process.
At CMM level 3, they are all using the *SAME* defined, published process.
> ISO 9000 would also be a comfort, but less so (I've seen really bad
> code from ISO 9000 certified shops).
ISO 9000 says nothing about quality. It just says that they have written
down their process, they are following their written process, and
independent auditors have spot-checked them on it.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-04-25 20:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-04-25 15:14 Enforcing good software process Stephen Leake
2003-04-25 20:15 ` John R. Strohm [this message]
2003-04-28 15:55 ` Stephen Leake
2003-04-29 20:12 ` Kevin Cline
2003-04-29 20:54 ` Stephen Leake
2003-04-30 17:01 ` Rod Chapman
2003-05-11 23:02 ` Robert I. Eachus
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox