From: helliott@losat.redstone.army.mil (Doc Elliott)
Subject: Re: DOD-STD-1679A(Navy)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 95 07:44:18 EST
Date: 1995-03-08T07:44:18-05:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3jkddt$mk1@michp1.redstone.army.mil> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 3jgic3$q3g$1@sydney.DIALix.oz.au
In article <3jgic3$q3g$1@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>, cronan@sydney.DIALix.oz.au
says...
>
Sniperoo
>Paragraph 5.10.3 of the standard uses this phrase to define the number
>of allowable problems in the software at acceptance.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
?!?!?!?! The Navy actually will accept a CSCI that has KNOWN problems?
And yet they still get more of the DoD budget than we do.....
--
Doc Elliott
KE4KUZ
Internet: helliott@losat.redstone.army.mil
packet: ke4kuz@k4ry.#cenal.al.usa.noam
The opinions expressed herein are mine, and do not
reflect those of my employer or anyone else unless
specifically stated as such.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1995-03-08 12:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1995-03-07 3:02 DOD-STD-1679A(Navy) Mark Cronan
1995-03-07 4:50 ` DOD-STD-1679A(Navy) verne
1995-03-08 12:44 ` Doc Elliott [this message]
1995-03-09 17:05 ` DOD-STD-1679A(Navy) Garlington KE
1995-03-18 1:30 ` DOD-STD-1679A(Navy) Scott . Smart CDR
[not found] ` <3jkddt$mk1@michp1.redstone.army. <50716@suned1.Nswses.Navy.MIL>
1995-03-21 18:12 ` DOD-STD-1679A(Navy) Doc Elliott
1995-03-23 12:23 ` DOD-STD-1679A(Navy) Mike Meier
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1995-03-10 14:52 DOD-STD-1679A(Navy) Jeff Seigle
1995-03-10 15:37 ` DOD-STD-1679A(Navy) Garlington KE
1995-03-11 4:22 ` DOD-STD-1679A(Navy) verne
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox