Talk:Dependency graph

Untitled

69.251.180.224 (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting statements

In mathematics and computer science, a dependency graph is a directed acyclic graph [...]
In a dependency graph, impossible calculations form cycles.

A DAG is cycle-free, by definition. How can these two statements be modified to reflect the true aspects of dependency graphs? --Abdull (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I just left the first part from the stub. I think one should just remove the acyclic in the first statement, because no one builds some digraph and then checks if it's acyclic and then calls it dependency graph. Everyone just builds some dependency graph and searches for cycles in order to see if the dependency graph can be evaluated. --Tetha (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

In my opinion, the article Dependency diagram should be converted into a section of Dependency graph. There is no point in keeping a small-sized article like that separated from this article. --Antonielly (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are two deferent concepts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pollaeng (talk • contribs) 23:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand the usage: dependency diagrams are used as part of IT project management for defining system dependencies. I have never used a dependency graph I therefore feel that dependency diagram should stand in its own right as a wikipedia page. What we need here is a better understanding of what a dependency graph is. From what I have read it is more of a mathmatically based representation of data and thus too technical for use by project manages and business analysts.Deevincentday (talk) 11:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]