RE: Released version

Hi Brian,

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Brian Bailey [mailto:bbaileyconsulting@comcast.net]
>Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 3:26 PM
>To: Shabtay Matalon
>Cc: itc@eda.org
>Subject: RE: Released version
>
>Hi Shabtay,
>    You are probably right that it is not actually released until the
>Accellera board says so - so I did think twice before putting it up on
the
>web site. The version for the board - if they approve it, will become
the
>release so it is ready for that eventuality. 
[Shabtay] Ok. I understand and have no issue with dropping the word
"candidate". 

I also though hard about the
>wording in the document. It is the SCE-MI 2.0 release of a draft
>specification, so I believe that both are right. I think it would have
been
>wrong to call it a draft release, as this is the final release of 2.0
which
>is a draft standard. In 1.1.0 we had referred to the document as a
>reference
>manual which I also think was wrong.
>
>Given that every page says 'draft specification' I do not see how there
>could be much confusion. If you feel better we could change the front
page
>to say Draft Specification Release, but it would not be right to call
it a
>Draft Release.
[Shabtay] I think the front page is important and should be consistent
with the footer in each page. 

I also agree with your wording so please add "Draft Specification
Release Version 2.0" to the front page.

>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-itc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-itc@server.eda.org] On
Behalf
>Of Shabtay Matalon
>Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 3:00 PM
>To: brian_bailey@acm.org
>Cc: itc@server.eda.org
>Subject: RE: Released version
>
>Brian,
>
>Looking at the version you just posted on the web, I have noted that
you
>have take the word "candidate" out from the front page and footers.
>
>Also, the footer of each page states "SCE-MI 2.0 draft specification -
>release" but the front page states only SCE-MI "Version 2.0 Release"
>
>My questions:
>
>Isn't SCE-MI 2.0 draft specification still a release "candidate" until
>approved by the other Accellera chairs?
>
>Shouldn't the font page say also "Version 2.0 Draft release
>(candidate)"?
>
>We only agreed to release SCE-MI 2.0 as a draft.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Shabtay
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-itc@eda.org [mailto:owner-itc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Brian
>>Bailey
>>Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 2:42 PM
>>To: itc@eda.org
>>Subject: Released version
>>
>>Hi Everyone,
>>    You will have seen my previous email sending the released version
>to
>>Johny Srouji for Accellera board approval. I know the attachment will
>have
>>bounced, so I am also sending this email which should get through the
>>reflector properly. The pdf is up on the web site on the front page.
At
>>this
>>point in time, I have not tidied up the working area, but will get to
>that
>>over the next couple of weeks,
>>
>>Thanks again everyone!!!
>>Brian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>This message has been scanned for viruses and
>>dangerous content by 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.
>
>
>


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