Investigate SWEBOK2025

[samm82]

Since the new version of SWEBOK has been published, I should investigate it and document:

• what changes have been made to data that appears:
  • as a manual flaw
  • as an automated flaw
  • in my thesis (e.g., as an example)
• any flaws this new version resolves (i.e., elasticity testing and scalability testing)
• any flaws I originally submitted that I am still confident in that were not resolved
• this process itself (as a "what we did but weren't able to do fully; see Separating results and methodology #246)

[samm82]

Well this was an encouraging start! 🤩

[JacquesCarette]

Nice!

[smiths]

Yes, very nice @samm82, and a little unexpected. You deserve to be mentioned, of course, but it is odd that they didn't respond to your feedback. I guess the real test is whether they made the changes you suggested!

[samm82]

NOTE: as per #248, we won't be pursuing the timesink of documenting this type of data, so this is now obsolete.

I went through my original review document to see which suggestions made it to the final cut (pushing relevant changes to the swebokUpdates branch) and made the following (rough) summary; I'll add discussing this to the agenda for Monday's meeting.

[smiths]

That's frustrating, but at least they listened to some of your advice. Given their lack of communication, I wasn't expecting them to be professional about it at all, so the bar is low for me. 😄