[sv-ac] FW: Clarification of objectives for review of preliminary merged LRM

Forwarding e-mail from Stu.

-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Pieper [mailto:Karen.Pieper@synopsys.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 3:06 AM
To: Brad Pierce; Charles Dawson; Korchemny, Dmitry; Ghassan Khoory; John
Havlicek; Karen Pieper; Logie Ramachandran; Maidment, Matthew R; Mehdi
Moteshemi; Neil Korpusik; Somdipta Basu Roy
Cc: Stuart Sutherland
Subject: FW: Clarification of objectives for review of preliminary
merged LRM



Hi, all,

Can you forward this to your committees, and get the organizational
feedback back to Stu?

Thanks,

K

----
Mail from Stu:

Working group chairs and members,

As the editor, I just wanted to remind everyone what I need from each
working group regarding the review of the preliminary draft of the
merged
LRM (P1800-2008/Draft 2).

The primary purpose of this review is to verify the ***organization and
completeness*** of the merged Verilog and SystemVerilog LRMs.  To finish
the
merge process, I need to know:

1). Are the clauses and first-order subclauses in an order that makes
the
document usable and intuitive.

2). Are there any subclauses from the separate LRMs that I failed to
include
in this preliminary draft, and which should be in the next draft of the
merged LRM.

3). Has the preliminary draft proved that we delivery a merged LRM as a
2008
standard.  Each committee is give their opinion whether the merge
process
should continue, or if we should stay with the separate LRMs for the
2008
standard.

To accomplish the primary goals of this preliminary draft, it is not
necessary to drill down to the paragraph and sentence level.  Nor should
Mantis items be created against this preliminary draft.  Digging in too
deep
could lead to effort that needs to be repeated on the next draft.
Clause
numbering and subclause numbering are subject to change based on
feedback
from reviewing the preliminary draft.  As noted in the preliminary
draft,
there are many subclauses from the separate LRMs that have been
cut-and-pasted where I think they should go, in order to evaluate
organization and completeness.  The actual merging of that text has not
yet
been completed, and is not ready for review at the paragraph and
sentence
level.

In short, the purpose of this preliminary draft is for a course-grained
review.  The fine grained review should begin with the next draft, once
course-grained feedback has been incorporated.

Stu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stuart Sutherland
Sutherland HDL, Inc.
stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
503-692-0898

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