Re: [sv-ac] RE: Review of implemented Mantis items

Yes, Shalom is correct.

We never assign a mantis item to the Editor. Updating
the status to Editor is all that is required to send
a mantis item to the Editor.

Neil

On 05/17/11 05:52, Bresticker, Shalom wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I believe that when you change the status to Editor, you should NOT
> change the "Assigned To" field to the name of the editor.
>
> That field is for the subcommittee member who is responsible for the
> proposal, and remains constant as the item advances through the
> resolution, approval, and implementation process.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Shalom
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Little Scott-B11206
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 17, 2011 3:34 PM
> *To:* Korchemny, Dmitry; 'sv-ac@eda-stds.org'
> *Subject:* [sv-ac] RE: Review of implemented Mantis items
>
>
>
> Done
>
>
>
> *From:* Korchemny, Dmitry [mailto:dmitry.korchemny@intel.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 17, 2011 6:13 AM
> *To:* Little Scott-B11206; 'sv-ac@eda-stds.org'
> *Subject:* RE: Review of implemented Mantis items
>
>
>
> Hi Scott,
>
>
>
> Please, set 2732 to Editor status and add a note describing what is
> wrong there.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dmitry
>
>
>
> *From:* Little Scott-B11206 [mailto:B11206@freescale.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 10, 2011 20:20
> *To:* Korchemny, Dmitry; 'sv-ac@eda-stds.org'
> *Subject:* RE: Review of implemented Mantis items
>
>
>
> Hi Dmitry:
>
>
>
> Below are the results of my mantis review.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> 2362 – Ok
>
> 2479 – Ok
>
> 2571 – Ok
>
> 2732 – “global clocking future-sampled value functions” is written
> instead of “global clocking future sampled value functions” There is an
> added ‘-‘ that I don’t believe is correct. The numbers are in a Courier
> font which I believe is incorrect.
>
> 3020 – Ok
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Korchemny, Dmitry
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 03, 2011 5:51 AM
> *To:* 'sv-ac@eda-stds.org'
> *Subject:* [sv-ac] Review of implemented Mantis items
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Below is the list of Mantis items implemented in the Draft
> 1800-11-0001-00 along, and their owners. Item owners, please, review
> your item implementation and notify me when ready. If the implementation
> is incorrect, put a note with the problem explanation and set the item
> status to Editor. If the implementation is correct, do nothing.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dmitry
>
>
>
> 2353 Anupam 'classes' missing from description
>
> 2871 Anupam Clause 16 does not forbid assertion
> local variables within clocking event expressions
>
> 2934 Anupam Precedence and associativity of case
> operator is not shown in the table
>
> 2291 Ashok the description of $assertoff blurs
> assertions and attempts
>
> 2330 Ashok Clarify that number_of_ticks argument
> to $past must be compile-time constant
>
> 2452 Dana No vacuity information about
> synchronous aborts
>
> 2904 Dana Clarify when disable iff condition
> must occur relative to starting and ending of an attempt
>
> 3134 Dana sequence and property range
> parameters are erroneously defined
>
> 2551 Dmitry trivial example error
>
> 2552 Dmitry Confusing comments regarding nexttime
> operator
>
> 2927 Dmitry Precedence between sequence/property
> operator and normal expression operator
>
> 2205 Erik $asseroff, $assertkill and
> $asserton description is ambiguous
>
> 2938 Erik Surprising (to some users)
> interaction between deferred assertions & short-circuiting
>
> 1627 Manisha 17.16: clarify that expect statement
> not allowed in functions
>
> 2485 Samik terminology related to immediate and
> deferred assertions
>
> 2558 Samik Restriction inside checker construct
>
> 2362 Scott 16.14 mention of assertion control
> system tasks is unconnected
>
> 2479 Scott Annex F.5.2.1 conflicts with
> changes from 2434
>
> 2571 Scott confusing assertion clock
> inference rule
>
> 2732 Scott Clarify timing diagram in Figure
> 16-4. Future value change
>
> 3020 Scott Recursive property Restriction 4
> is not consistent between Clause 16.13.17 and Annex F.7
>
> 2494 Tapan 37.44 Assertion diagram missing restrict
>
> 2955 Tapan Checker example is wrong
>
> 2722 Tom Errors in Figures 16-14, 16-15, and
> 16-16
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Israel (74) Limited
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Israel (74) Limited
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Israel (74) Limited
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.