<?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#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Internal tools only require the critical path	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.robg3d.com/2012/02/internal-tools-only-require-the-critical-path/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.robg3d.com/2012/02/internal-tools-only-require-the-critical-path/</link>
	<description>Blog of Rob Galanakis (@robgalanakis)</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:08:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=5.4.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Robert		</title>
		<link>https://www.robg3d.com/2012/02/internal-tools-only-require-the-critical-path/#comment-8105</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:08:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.robg3d.com/?p=886#comment-8105</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[good post. But don&#039;t forget about us outsourcers though. We love it when you develop your tools as if they were (at least a little bit) for an external client. Ideally you want to ask yourself &quot;is there a chance we will give this tool to a 3rd party?&quot;.

Cheating, unfortunately does happen - some people just like shortcuts. That&#039;s where QA comes in, or your tool, so it prevents cheating right away.

Security - many outsourcers have different clients and enforce stricter security than their clients. your tools should play along that, or we have to send them back, or spend time with your TA troubleshooting (not good for both parties).

Still, the lengths you have to go to are still way below anything if you&#039;re billing an external client for it. So yes, do experiment!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>good post. But don&#8217;t forget about us outsourcers though. We love it when you develop your tools as if they were (at least a little bit) for an external client. Ideally you want to ask yourself &#8220;is there a chance we will give this tool to a 3rd party?&#8221;.</p>
<p>Cheating, unfortunately does happen &#8211; some people just like shortcuts. That&#8217;s where QA comes in, or your tool, so it prevents cheating right away.</p>
<p>Security &#8211; many outsourcers have different clients and enforce stricter security than their clients. your tools should play along that, or we have to send them back, or spend time with your TA troubleshooting (not good for both parties).</p>
<p>Still, the lengths you have to go to are still way below anything if you&#8217;re billing an external client for it. So yes, do experiment!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
