<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Allowing time for testing</title>
	<atom:link href="http://kanemar.com/2006/10/07/allowing-time-for-testing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://kanemar.com/2006/10/07/allowing-time-for-testing/</link>
	<description>Adventures in Agile Software Development and Scrum</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 09:24:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Harald Walker</title>
		<link>http://kanemar.com/2006/10/07/allowing-time-for-testing/#comment-6746</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Harald Walker]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:50:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kanemar.wordpress.com/2006/10/07/allowing-time-for-testing/#comment-6746</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We&#039;ve been considering a 3 + 1 schema for one iteration. 3 weeks of development with full focus on stories and tasks and one week of stabilizing, with intensive testing (by team members and QA testers) and fixing. This way we can keep the monthly rhythm and should be able to reach a higher quality level. The team which develops the Eclipse IDE is obviously working like that. What do you think of this?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We&#8217;ve been considering a 3 + 1 schema for one iteration. 3 weeks of development with full focus on stories and tasks and one week of stabilizing, with intensive testing (by team members and QA testers) and fixing. This way we can keep the monthly rhythm and should be able to reach a higher quality level. The team which develops the Eclipse IDE is obviously working like that. What do you think of this?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Musings of a Software Development Manager &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Getting Testing Done in a Sprint</title>
		<link>http://kanemar.com/2006/10/07/allowing-time-for-testing/#comment-1096</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Musings of a Software Development Manager &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Getting Testing Done in a Sprint]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2006 20:58:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kanemar.wordpress.com/2006/10/07/allowing-time-for-testing/#comment-1096</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Kane Mar wrote recently about the difficulty teams have adjusting to finishing within an iteration: Typically what this means is that the software will be code complete at the end of an iteration, but will not have been fully tested. A comment that was frequently heard during the early retrospectives was that code was delivered late to the testers; usually just a day or two before the end of the iteration. [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Kane Mar wrote recently about the difficulty teams have adjusting to finishing within an iteration: Typically what this means is that the software will be code complete at the end of an iteration, but will not have been fully tested. A comment that was frequently heard during the early retrospectives was that code was delivered late to the testers; usually just a day or two before the end of the iteration. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

