<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Build and Release Management &#187; Automated Test Framework</title>
	<atom:link href="http://allscm.com/archives/category/automated-test-framework/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://allscm.com</link>
	<description>SCM Unleashed!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:13:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>CruiseControl&#8217;s Scheduler of Multiple Builders</title>
		<link>http://allscm.com/archives/cruisecontrols-scheduler-of-multiple-builders.html</link>
		<comments>http://allscm.com/archives/cruisecontrols-scheduler-of-multiple-builders.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:33:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Automated Test Framework]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Build Framework]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://allscm.com/?p=120</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ever run into the problem where you must set multiple builders running different inside of CruiseControl&#8217;s scheduler block?  I recently had to do that for one of the projects I&#8217;m integrating, but kept on running into inconsistency in CruiseControl 2.8.2. My first attempt was this: &#60;schedule interval=&#34;900&#34;&#62; &#60;ant time=&#34;1200&#34; anthome=&#34;${ANTHOME}&#34; antworkingdir=&#34;${my_build.dir}&#34; buildfile=&#34;${my_build.file}&#34; target=&#34;build.all.then.test&#34; uselogger=&#34;true&#34; usedebug=&#34;false&#34;/&#62; [...]


No related posts.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://allscm.com/archives/cruisecontrols-scheduler-of-multiple-builders.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Quick Test Profession (QTP) Exit Code</title>
		<link>http://allscm.com/archives/quick-test-profession-qtp-exit-code.html</link>
		<comments>http://allscm.com/archives/quick-test-profession-qtp-exit-code.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:11:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Automated Test Framework]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://allscm.com/?p=49</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ever run into the problem where you have to use NAnt or CruiseControl.net script to call Quick Test Professional test suites to only discover that QTP doesn&#8217;t really have proper exit codes which drives the error reporting of NAnt/CruiseControl.NET nuts?  Yeah, I have recently.. and here&#8217;s how I skirted the problem. With the suggestion and [...]


No related posts.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://allscm.com/archives/quick-test-profession-qtp-exit-code.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Configuration Management Policy</title>
		<link>http://allscm.com/archives/configuration-management-policy.html</link>
		<comments>http://allscm.com/archives/configuration-management-policy.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:14:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Automated Test Framework]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Build Framework]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Continuous Integration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Release Framework]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCM Agile Development]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://allscm.com/?p=23</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[To promote the spirit of Agile Development and Continuous Integration, groups of builds must be classified and treated differently within the development organization. These builds are as follows: Engineering: These builds lives on the individual developer&#8217;s machine. It should never see the light of day beyond this scope. This is merely a convenient build tool [...]


No related posts.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://allscm.com/archives/configuration-management-policy.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
