Comments on: Agile development comes to Photoshop

By: Dave Story

Dave Story — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:40:13 +0000

Yes, Troy Stein, each developer is responsible for features across all platforms (OS, OS revs, hardware) that we support.
Dave Story
Adobe

By: Troy Stein

Troy Stein — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:02:27 +0000

So… one developer working on a feature at a time. Did one developer do that feature for the Mac and the PC?

By: John Welch

John Welch — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:11:35 +0000

The entire IT community would appreciate it. It’s amazing how making updates so painful can make you want to use anything else.

By: John Welch

John Welch — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:55:59 +0000

So my question is this. Does agile development mean that updating 300 copies of CS 3 on a network (both mac and windows) won’t suck?
Because CS2′s updates? Suck.
Dyson in a black hole – level suck. Thanks to that boneheaded installer Adobe uses, you can’t just push out updates with ease.
(Well you may be able to on windows, but sure as *hell* not on a Mac network).
In fact, there’s a thread about this on the MacEnterprise list, and it’s universal opinion that updating CS2 is the single most onerous task anyone running a Mac network has, and it’s made *extra* special by the fact that Adobe uses extra-low bandwidth connections to their update servers.
In fact, I’ll say that unless you start making us type in, compile, and build the patches BY HAND prior to deploying, you could literally not make the process suck MORE.
Me, I just wish that every single person at Adobe has to update CS2 a thousand seat Mac network SOLO. Maybe if you had to deal with that debacle of dumb and the pain it causes yourselves, you’d not be so blase about inflicting it upon others.
[Let me see what I can find out about the new installer. --J.]

By: Rich MacDonald

Rich MacDonald — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 06:56:29 +0000

Speaking of free transform, this article helps me understand why one engineer getting sick meant that the full free transform for smart objects got derailed for another version. I'd have payed for CS3 if that were the only new feature. Which is not to say that I won't be first in line to upgrade for all the other great improvements CS3 offers!

By: Rich MacDonald

Rich MacDonald — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 06:53:30 +0000

sometimes the smallest things (e.g. making it possible to rename a layer right in the Layers palette, instead of in a dialog, as was enabled in PS7) have a big impact.

I couldn’t agree more. The feature that sold me on PS CS was the fact that in full screen mode you could move the image anywhere you wanted with the hand tool. In CS 2, it’s the fact that you can change the opacity and blending mode in the middle of a free transform. I don’t think these additions were featured selling points.
Speaking of free transform, this article helps me understand why one engineer getting sick meant that the full free transform for smart objects got derailed for another version. I’d have payed for CS3 if that were the only new feature. Which is not to say that I won’t be first in line to upgrade for all the other great improvements CS3 offers!

By: Martin

Martin — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 04:47:00 +0000

One question: did only the Photoshop development team change its way to work or did other teams (Ai, Id..) do the same (good) thing resulting in an overall improved CS3 suite?

By: Jeffrey Tranberry

Jeffrey Tranberry — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:52:20 +0000

I don't know if you can really call the development process we did for CS3 "Agile Development." We really did a hybrid of many development methodologies. Perhaps we could call it "more agile" or "semi-incremental." Was it better than what we had done in the past? Absolutely. Was it perfect? Nope. It was definitely an experiment and a learning experience. I remember a conversation really early on with a product manager who was more than a little skeptical of the changes. [Impossible! I don't know know what you're talking about. ;-) --J.] I'm planning to post something on this topic in the near future and I'll be sure to frame it from the QE perspective -given it was really about putting "Quality First." [Great; please let me know when it's up so that I can add a link to it. --J.]

By: Eric Peacock

Eric Peacock — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:54:15 +0000

One comment with the article brings up the longer length of the development cycle and the perception that there are less features in CS3 compared to prior - basically that this time around it has taken longer for supposedly less. [Heh--you know, it almost doesn't matter what we do: some people will always perceive it to be a ton, while others will greet it with a shrug. I was just on a phone call with a French journalist who said, "It's amazing how much innovation you guys have poured into CS3. It really dwarfs CS2." Back in the days of numerical designators (PS4, PS5, etc.), someone would ways pipe up to say that "This is more of a .5 release..." As always, any list that enumerates the changes big & small that we've made is kind of meaningless; all that matters is how they affect you, and sometimes the smallest things (e.g. making it possible to rename a layer right in the Layers palette, instead of in a dialog, as was enabled in PS7) have a big impact. I'm rambling, but the point is, you can't really quantify this stuff. --J.] It seems that the longer cycle would not be because the team changed the development process, but rather because of the Apple/Intel migration as well as the absorption of all the Macromedia product. [Those have been, in fact, major, major challenges. That we don't talk about them is probably the best thing we can say, because it means things have gone about as smoothly as one could have hoped. You'll never see the year of effort that went into switching to Xcode, nor should you: it's our job (and Apple's) to make things Just Work. --J.] Neither Apple or Macromedia has been mentioned specifically as a factor, so it does sound like your changes were the cause of a longer development cycle. [As Russell said, the development cycle is specified by the company. We adjust our plans to fit. (That's the only possible way to go when you're building suites; otherwise everyone would set their own schedules.) --J.] And to me, less shipping bugs is better product and that is part of doing good business. Other than the one-time Intel Mac issue, I don't think many of us are dying for a yearly update to the Creative Suite. [Nor were you ever getting one. The shortest cycle I can think of was Photoshop 5.5, which was (I think) 14 months. Everything else has been 18 months or more. --J.] Sounds like a good change.