<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: To Repeat Tests or Not to Repeat</title>
	<link>http://www.satisfice.com/blog/archives/24</link>
	<description>The Consulting Software Tester</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 09:43:20 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ruminations &#187; Repeatability is Overrated</title>
		<link>http://www.satisfice.com/blog/archives/24#comment-13569</link>
		<dc:creator>Ruminations &#187; Repeatability is Overrated</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:34:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.satisfice.com/blog/archives/24#comment-13569</guid>
		<description>[...] There are an infinite number of possible tests. Why repeat the same small, finite set over and over again, getting just the information those repeated tests can give you, when there are numerous other possible tests that could give you new, different, and more interesting information? The pesticide paradox* says that repeated tests will find fewer and fewer issues. James Bach explains this in terms of the Mine Field Analogy. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] There are an infinite number of possible tests. Why repeat the same small, finite set over and over again, getting just the information those repeated tests can give you, when there are numerous other possible tests that could give you new, different, and more interesting information? The pesticide paradox* says that repeated tests will find fewer and fewer issues. James Bach explains this in terms of the Mine Field Analogy. [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
