Subject: Fw: [sv-ac] Expressing a concern
From: Faisal Haque (fhaque@cisco.com)
Date: Thu Feb 13 2003 - 09:29:16 PST
In light of Vassilios' email. I am changing the review process for the LRM
as as follows:
The review in SV-AC will be limited to technical problems,
semantics, features and identifying corner cases that DWG may have missed.
In this reveiw we need to avoid attempts to change the language based on
stylistic preferences.
Stylistic feedback is ok but DWG will need to make language changes.
So I will limit the scope of review to above mentioned activities.
-Faisal
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Havlicek" <john.havlicek@motorola.com>
> To: <sv-ac@eda.org>; <vfv@eda.org>
> Cc: <bill.read@mot.com>; <michael.garcia@mot.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 9:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [sv-ac] Expressing a concern
>
>
> > All:
> >
> > What is the plan to achieve alignment with PSL?
> > The DWG was supposed to produce a unified kernel for
> > both the SV-AC and FVTC efforts, so the syntax and
> > semantics choices in the SVA LRM must be consistent
> > with such a plan. It is not reassuring to hear only
> > that alginment will be "worked out later".
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > John Havlicek
> >
> >
> > > From: "Faisal Haque"<fhaque@cisco.com>
> > > Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 20:11:21 -0800
> > > X-Priority: 3
> > > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> > > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
> > > Sender: owner-sv-ac@eda.org
> > > Precedence: bulk
> > >
> > > Prakash,
> > >
> > > You bring up a very good point about the scope of activities for this
> review
> > > process. It looks like we need to make a distinction between
identifying
> > > technical problems in the language and changing the language.
> > >
> > > -Faisal
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Prakash Narain" <prakash@realintent.com>
> > > To: "sv-ac" <sv-ac@eda.org>
> > > Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 6:06 PM
> > > Subject: [sv-ac] Expressing a concern
> > >
> > >
> > > > I am expressing a concern that if we start debating major syntax
> > > > revisions to the current proposal, we will not make much progress
> > > > in the given time. I will feel more comfortable if we only focus on
> > > > aspects of the proposal that clearly need revision to enhance the
> > > > stability of the DWG proposal.
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Prakash
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Feb 13 2003 - 09:29:55 PST