Re: [sv-ac] Dragt7: LTL operators (1932) are not in Annex F

Hi Dmitry,

I don't believe that we need a new mantis item for resolving this.
I have added a bug note which hopefully clarifies the situation.
A copy of that note is copied below. The mantis item is now in the
Editor state, which is the correct status, given the current situation.

-----------

Note to the Editor:

The approved proposal consists of two parts, which is split across two
files. The Champions were aware of this when they approved the proposal on
April 10, 2008. The Champions were expecting the two pdf files to be merged
so that the Editor would not need to deal with two files. In a bug note
from Dmitry, he points out that were some problems when an attempt was made
to merge the two pdf's (one was produced by LaTeX).

The contents of one of the two files didn't make it into draft 7. This is not
too surprising, given the number of bug notes and the number of files that
have been uploaded.

Dmitry has noted that the missing file is the following. We need to have the
set of proposed changes contained in this file merged into draft 7 of the LRM.

    LTL_Formal.080317.pdf


Neil



On 09/15/08 23:16, Korchemny, Dmitry wrote:
> 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 *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, and is
believed to be clean.