[sv-ac] RE: Review of SV-AC Mantis items

Hi Dimitry,

Here are my reviews:

2248:
Accept
Nice
Need to add references at few places
Yes, can be addressed in this par as the change is small

2810:
Reject. Should close it as not relevant anymore as checkers cannot be instantiated in procedural block of another checker.

2752:
Reject. The language having a problem is already fixed in 2012. Should close the issue.

2858:
Accept
Nice
Need to add statements to clarify things.
Yes, should be addressed in this par.


Errata:

5511:
Accept
Must
Need a proposal based on general consensus
Yes, we should address it in this par.

4154:
Accept
Nice
Only first issue mentioned needs a fix. The second one is optional as it is not really an error. The third is already fixed.
Yes, address in this par as change is small.

1296:
Not sure.

1502:
Reject
Looks like a lot of effort. Not sure if we have enough time to address this.

3027:
Accept
Nice
Can be addressed in this par.

2980:
Accept
high
This is something which may cause backward incompatibility so should address it now if we really want to address it.

1853:
Accept
High
Should be addressed in this par.

2340:
Accept
High
Should not take much time as initial proposal is there.
Yes, address in this par.

3117:
Accept
Nice
Yes, we should address it in this par

Thanks.
Manisha


From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of Dmitry Korchemny
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 9:08 AM
To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: [sv-ac] Review of SV-AC Mantis items

Hi,

I am attaching the updated Excel sheets with the review assignments. Each reviewer should grade his/her assigned items using the following categories:

*         Accept/reject - whether you think that the item should eventually be implemented or not (if you disagree with it). Reject does not mean that the item should not be addressed in this PAR, but that you disagree with it completely.

*         Importance - must/high/nice/low. The items you want to reject do not necessarily have low importance. It might be important to resolve them as "no change required" or "won't fix"

*         Resolution effort in days

*         Item classification: should item classification be changed (e.g., errata become a clarification, etc.). Here the correct type should be specified (e.g., Errata, Enhancement, etc.)

*         Has to be addressed in this PAR - yes/no - the bottom line resolution

This estimation is due for 10-Jan-2016, 11:59 pm PST.

Notes:

*         Partitioning into Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2 is absolutely arbitrary and does not reflect either reviewer seniority or responsibility.

*         Each item has been assigned to two people

*         The following criteria have been taken into account for assignment a reviewer:

o   Volunteers for a given item

o   Item reporters or owners

o   Different affiliation of reviewers

*         The reviewers are expected to review at least their own items

*         Any person may review any additional item from the spreadsheets should he/she wish so. The additional review will have the same weight as the assigned reviews.