<?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/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The perfect agile test management tool</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gojko.net/2010/05/04/the-perfect-agile-test-management-tool/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gojko.net/2010/05/04/the-perfect-agile-test-management-tool/</link>
	<description>Building software that matters</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 13:40:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Echlin</title>
		<link>http://gojko.net/2010/05/04/the-perfect-agile-test-management-tool/comment-page-1/#comment-95783</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Echlin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gojko.net/?p=1815#comment-95783</guid>
		<description>I couldn&#039;t agree more that getting all kinds of different tools to talk to each other is the big problem these days. Different teams pick up different tools as they mature over a period of time. As a result we&#039;ve got legacy tools/systems with some teams and new tools with other teams, all holding essential data. Bringing these together is the challenge.

Years ago when implementing new tools (requirements management, test management, defect management, etc) the solution chosen would exist in a vacuum. Now though we bring in a new tool to plug a gap and it has to slot in like a piece in a jigsaw. Not only does this end up limiting the list of tools you can select from but it also means you have far more stakeholders with a vested interest in selecting the right tool. 

In short it&#039;s becoming more and more complicated to select the right tool. If indeed there even is one. Perhaps it&#039;s all about compromise now?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I couldn&#8217;t agree more that getting all kinds of different tools to talk to each other is the big problem these days. Different teams pick up different tools as they mature over a period of time. As a result we&#8217;ve got legacy tools/systems with some teams and new tools with other teams, all holding essential data. Bringing these together is the challenge.</p>
<p>Years ago when implementing new tools (requirements management, test management, defect management, etc) the solution chosen would exist in a vacuum. Now though we bring in a new tool to plug a gap and it has to slot in like a piece in a jigsaw. Not only does this end up limiting the list of tools you can select from but it also means you have far more stakeholders with a vested interest in selecting the right tool. </p>
<p>In short it&#8217;s becoming more and more complicated to select the right tool. If indeed there even is one. Perhaps it&#8217;s all about compromise now?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

