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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,4d3d6e0d9380f47f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: l107353@cliffy.lfwc.lockheed.com (Garlington KE) Subject: Re: DoD Ada 95 Policy Date: 1995/03/29 Message-ID: <3lcei9$a84@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 100540707 references: organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1995-03-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Tucker Taft (stt@spock.camb.inmet.com) wrote: : It looks like most DoD programs can start using Ada 95 compilers, so long : as they are willing to take on and manage the increased risk, and so long : as they will deliver with a validated Ada 95 compiler. This is true. However, if your contract explicitly calls out MIL-STD-1815 (as the F-22 contract doesn, for example), you still have to do something contract-wise to use Ada 95, either a spec change or a spec waiver of some type, Paige's memo was guidance to the services; it doesn't override the language of your contract. Also, there's not a lot of guidance out there right now on what it means to "manage the increased risk," so this is something you have to work with your customer. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Garlington GarlingtonKE@lfwc.lockheed.com F-22 Computer Resources Lockheed Fort Worth Co. If LFWC or the F-22 program has any opinions, they aren't telling me.