See also JohnBrewersXpFaq for a non-Wiki traditional-style FAQ.

'''I am brand new to XP, where can I start?'''

	1. ExtremeProgramming
	1. ExtremeProgrammingRoadmap
	1. http://www.XProgramming.com
	1. http://www.extremeprogramming.org
	2. Read ExtremeProgrammingExplainedEmbraceChange and RefactoringImprovingTheDesignOfExistingCode
	3. Then examine all the threads about XP that raged on comp.object 
	4. http://www.jera.com/techinfo/xpfaq.html
	

'''Where can I find slide shows/presentations about XP?'''
	* ExtremeHour
	* http://www.ime.usp.br/~kon (Portuguese copyleft material by Fabio Kon and Alfredo Goldman)

'''Where's categorized FAQs about XP sub-topics?'''

	* XpCommentsFaq
	* XpDatabasesFaq
	* XpDesignFaq
	* XpManagementFaq
	* XpRefactoringFaq
	* XpRiskFaq
	* XpScheduleFaq
	* XpTeamworkFaq
	* XpTestFaq
	* XpToolsFaq
	* XpVersionControlFaq
	* XpWebServerFaq (please!)

''The FAQ Rules: Some "FAQs" (corporate or non-fiction) are not actually things users of the FAQ's forum have actually frequently asked. I refer, of course, to books like ''C++ FAQs'' which, while of course very valuable, are not live.''

''Please only fill these FAQs with Q/A that actually transpired on an XP forum (either XpMailingList or XpNewsGroup), plus the relevant top-level XP links.''

''For example, the mailing list (and good ol' news:comp.object) has covered "how to UnitTest an HTTP server" many times...''

I disagree that only actual Q/A is valuable.  Yes, questions should be based on real (and frequent) questions, but both questions and answers should be edited or even rewritten to make their point more clearly.  At present (March 2001) I feel that the FAQ focuses too much on reality and not enough on clarity.  The FAQ should be the distilled wisdom of multiple questions and answers, not actual individual questions and answers.  --JimLittle
----
CategoryExtremeProgramming  CategoryFaq