Content deleted Content added
→The V-Model "in its simple and commonly understood form": secondary point |
No edit summary |
||
Line 50:
: An anon has started to restore material, but the phrase is redundant but nowhere does the article explain that it has variants. It only explains that it is one, single process. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 15:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
: Also, I've never heard that there are multiple forms so until you provide some reliable source to support your claim it makes no sense to include the phrase. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 15:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm surprised by your suggestion that there are not multiple forms. I assume that that is the reason for two related and overlapping Wikipedia articles. A simple search will reveal multiple variations, from the German V-Modell, to the US government version, and all sorts of more loosely defined versions, which are no more than illustrations of the the software development lifecycle. One could argue that the Forsberg & Mooz version is the definitive V-Model, but unfortunately that source isn't available online, and it is largely irrelevant to the great majority of people who discuss the V-Model out in the field. There is huge confusion about the V-Model because of these variations, and pretending that this is not so merely confuses people who come looking for guidance, often having come across a simplified form in an exam syllabus and then looking for further information.
The anonymous edit was by me, because I hadn't noticed I was not logged in. However, I didn't restore anything you removed. I merely clarified a point I had made and which you hadn't touched. [[User:Freddie Threepwood|Freddie Threepwood]] ([[User talk:Freddie Threepwood|talk]]) 16:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
| |||