Int-Sub: Intensity snaps to full when GM exempt in patch.

This is expected behaviour.

Your diagnosis is exactly right. To achieve the GM Exempt behaviour the Intens parameter is treated as non-intensity parameter under the hood.

Let’s take a look at these answers and see if we can add some clarity. When you mention something as expected behavior, it could be described as ‘according to specs’ or as the software’s intended behavior. However, sometimes it’s just not what we want. Should we simply conclude that it’s expected, which might discourage changes, or should we flag it as ‘needs improvement’? If we do, we’ll need to file a feature request each time it appears. I’m hoping you’ll do this, but I’m also hoping I’m not mistaken.

I’m writing this because I sometimes feel like you’re just trying to clear out the list, rather than making the software better. For instance, the regular check to see if an acknowledged issue is still relevant for our current workflow. If there’s no response within a certain timeframe, the issue is deleted from the list. While it might not be the most customer-friendly approach, it’s definitely a way to meet your targets for ‘solved’ issues. 

I clarified why the current behavior happens and "expected behaviour" means that we don't consider the current behavior a bug. If you want this long-standing behavior changed you will need to submit a feature request, so we can gauge interest in this change.

I clarified why the current behavior happens and "expected behaviour" means that we don't consider the current behavior a bug. If you want this long-standing behavior changed you will need to submit a feature request, so we can gauge interest in this change.