Re: [sv-ac] call to vote on Mantis 1730

Hi Ed:

Stu said that we are not supposed to be using draft2 as a 
basis for Mantis proposals.  Draft2 is for proof of concept
of feasibility of the merge.  It does not contain all the 
changes in draft1.

J.H.

> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 06:11:04 -0700
> X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
> Thread-Topic: [sv-ac] call to vote on Mantis 1730
> Thread-Index: AceBTaUJ3BonPwwSSQuLdIk/dgXZzwHfxjug
> From: "Eduard Cerny" <Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com>
> Cc: <sv-ac@eda-stds.org>
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Apr 2007 13:11:06.0399 (UTC) FILETIME=[83C8B2F0:01C788CD]
> 
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> 
> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C788CD.83720288
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> 	charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 
> Hello,
> 
> please find attached (and on Mantis) the proposal for 1730 with the
> correction mentioned  by Tom. In addition I also corrected Syntax box
> 17-4, resp 16-4. I also changed it so as to refer to the merged draft2
> of p1800-2008, i.e., clauses 16-...
> 
> In that merged LRM, there are other errors not carried over from the
> mantis prtoposals. For example, in the Syntax boxes 16-4 and 16-14, the
> formal ports are stil tf_port_list, rather than the specific
> non-terminals used in Annex A. =20
> What should we do with that? Enter mantis items for it or just report to
> Stu?
> 
> Best regards,
> ed
> 
> 

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