After reviewing all of the bug notes, I agree that it is documented that the proposal consists of two parts. My own bug note 7008 from months ago refers to a "part 1" and "part 2". Had there been just one Mantis item to implement in draft 7, I would likely have remembered these bug notes, and what was meant by "part 1" and "part 2". But several dozen Mantis items, mostly from SV-AC, needed to be implemented in draft 7, comprising several hundred of pages of change instructions. Other Mantis items that had split the change proposal into two change instruction files--which almost guarantees a risk that those not familiar with the change will miss something--at least made it clear in the file names that there were multiple parts, and made it clear in the text of the files that there were two parts. There is nothing in the Mantis 1932 files names or the instructions in the file with the latest time stamp that indicate there was a part 2. After implementing 87 Mantis items in draft 7, numbering hundreds and hundreds of pages of change instructions, plus 95 e-mails sent to the editor asking for minor corrections in the LRM, I no longer remembered the discussions from months ago That Mantis 1932 had a second, non-intuitively named file, that was not mentioned anywhere expect in a long list of bug notes. The AC committee made the split into multiple files on Mantis item 1932 as obscure as they possibly could, and will have to accept that obscure instructions to the editor, and poor choices in file names, will lead to editorial errors. Assuming the AC files a bug note in Mantis 1932 with very clear instructions to the editor as to what file(s) still need to be implemented, the obscurely named change file will be implemented in draft 8. Stu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Stuart Sutherland stuart@sutherland-hdl.com +1-503-692-0898 www.sutherland-hdl.com From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of Korchemny, Dmitry Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 11:17 PM To: stuart@sutherland-hdl.com Cc: sv-ac@eda.org; Neil.Korpusik@sun.com Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Dragt7: LTL operators (1932) are not in Annex F Hi Stu, There is your own note #7008 saying that the second part related to the Annex F had not been implemented in Draft 6 and that it would be implemented in the future draft. There is no problem with the champions' approval, and there is Neil's note (#6628) stating clearly that the proposal consists of two parts: LTL_Formal.080317.pdf and LTL.1932.080422.pdf. This is a SS problem, and it needs to be addressed. Since the current Mantis item contains the complete information, I don't see why another Mantis item should be open on this subject. Neil, what should be the process in this case? Thanks, Dmitry From: Stuart Sutherland [mailto:stuart@sutherland-hdl.com] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 7:38 PM To: Korchemny, Dmitry Cc: sv-ac@eda.org Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Dragt7: LTL operators (1932) are not in Annex F Dmitry, The latest proposal listed for Mantis 1932 is the file "LTL.1932.080422.pdf <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/file_download.php?file_id=3609&type=bug> ", dated 2008-04-22 12:25. There is nothing in that proposal that makes any changes to Annex F. If there are portions of this Mantis item that were not contained in the latest proposal file, then it is a mistake in the proposal itself, and not an editor error. When multiple proposal files are listed in a Mantis item, only the file with the most recent time stamp is implemented. The only exception would be if the file names are clearly labeled as Part 1 and a Part 2, and the Champions and Working Group reviewed and approved both parts. I do not know if the Champions committee and the Working Group reviewed and approved anything other than the proposal with the latest time stamp in Mantis 1932. Since the latest proposal does not indicate that a second, earlier-dated, file is supposed to be included in the changes, I doubt that a second file was approved. Please ask Neil if a new Mantis item should be filed to correct a proposal that has already been implemented, or if 1932 should be returned to editor status with a bug note indicating the error(s) in the proposal that need to be corrected. Stu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Stuart Sutherland stuart@sutherland-hdl.com +1-503-692-0898 www.sutherland-hdl.com From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of Korchemny, Dmitry Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 10:50 PM To: stuart@sutherland-hdl.com Cc: sv-ac@eda.org Subject: [sv-ac] Dragt7: LTL operators (1932) are not in Annex F Hi Stu, The formal semantics of LTL operators (Mantis 1932, file LTL_Formal.080317.pdf <http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=3502&type=bug> ) is not in the Annex F yet. In order to issue the Draft6 earlier we agreed to postpone changes in Annex F to the next draft, but they are missing from the Draft7 as well. When these changes are supposed to be done? Thanks, Dmitry --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, 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 <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Tue Sep 16 08:02:29 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 16 2008 - 08:03:39 PDT