From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e009f0918a859dbe
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-03-08 08:36:02 PST
Path: 
 bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!news.msfc.nasa.gov!news.redstone.army.mil!news
From: helliott@losat.redstone.army.mil (Doc Elliott)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: DOD-STD-1679A(Navy)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 95 07:44:18 EST
Organization: LOSAT Project Office
Message-ID: <3jkddt$mk1@michp1.redstone.army.mil>
References: <3jgic3$q3g$1@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.205.36.36
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.93.9
Date: 1995-03-08T07:44:18-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.