Hi Shalom, I've reviewed the changes that concerned you today. What I did in the diagrams and associated notes follows a pattern I saw in other diagram changes in SV-CC. The strikeouts are noted on the FROM: by me and the desired result is noted in the TO parts. This applies specifically to 36.16 and 36.17, but in fact is used consistently throughout my changes. It makes sense in the diagrams (though I understand the confusion it caused you) to show the composition of the final diagram, text labels, etc. with the deletions removed and no longer taking real estate. I did it consistently, so I treated diagram's detail notes no differently than its property descriptions in this respect. 36.16 is a perfect example of that. If that aspect is what is confusing, I am responsible. [ As far as strikeouts in the version from Stu, there are a couple of examples of strikeouts (e.g., 36.50, note 5), but nothing relevant to the confusion. I shouldn't have mentioned it. ] There was a concern in the Champions minutes you raised about a bad cross reference, p806 36.16, detail 26. Just to let you know, that text came from Stu's draft 5 and is entirely in green in that version. It is identified in the margin as coming from Mantis 1684. It is an issue, but has nothing to do with 02226. I think Stu should allay your concerns and tell you he can deal with 0226 as-is or indicate that we need to revise diagram details and show the strikeouts there. Please note that he will not be able to ignore the diagram FROM sections. They have to be reviewed for strikeouts in any case. As Jim Vellenga pointed out, this has been standard practice for SV-CC diagram edits. Please let me know if this works. I am only in the office tomorrow, so any editorial changes would most likely wait until Monday. Regards, John -----Original Message----- From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 1:46 AM To: Shields, John; Jim Vellenga Cc: Neil.Korpusik@sun.com; sv-champions@eda.org; SV-CC Subject: RE: [sv-cc] RE: [sv-champions] Email vote - ending August 13th John, Can you give an example of strikeouts that were in the version you received from Stu, i.e., not part of the proposal? Are any of them red, or are they other colors? If all red strikeouts are part of the proposal, I guess I can handle it, but the editor will need to say that he is willing to accept a proposal where both the FROM and TO parts of changes he needs to implement. Regards, Shalom > -----Original Message----- > From: John Shields [mailto:John_Shields@mentor.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 4:36 AM > To: Jim Vellenga > Cc: Bresticker, Shalom; Neil.Korpusik@sun.com; > sv-champions@eda.org; SV-CC > Subject: Re: [sv-cc] RE: [sv-champions] Email vote - ending > August 13th > > Hi All, > > I have been out of the office since last Wednesday. > Tomorrow, when I return, I will absorb the Champions feedback > and try to address the issues. Some of the strikeouts were in > the version I got from Stu, and I would not have re-colorized > any of that. I can re-verify starting from that base version. > We reviewed this a number of times, with the structural model > and colorization for the edits. We saw what we expected to > see, so it should be reasonable to clarify for you. I am only > in the office Tu and We this week, so I will be prompt. > > Thanks for your patience, > John > > Jim Vellenga wrote: > > Shalom, I agree that the changes are confusing. > > > > John, who put this proposal together, hasn't responded yet, > so let me > > say what I remember. In order to simplify the changes for > Stu, John > > Shields asked him for a copy of work in progress, and > annotated that. > > When this first happened, the copy that he obtained was > between draft > > 5 and draft 6. You'll see from the note at the top of the proposal > > for clause 36 that Stu's existing changes are supposed to > be in green, > > although I haven't confirmed that all those changes are in draft 6. > > > > You have observed, correctly I believe, that the strikeouts are > > occurring in the "REPLACE" section rather than in the > "WITH" section, > > and that this is unusual. In John's defense, I will note > that when we > > do strikeouts from the diagrams, we really haven't had any other > > choice; John seems to have extended this practice to the > text parts as > > well. > > > > However, I have paged through the proposal for 36 just now > myself and > > it looks pretty clear that all the strikeouts marked in red > are as the > > SV-CC intended as part of the approved proposal. John > seems to have > > done that consistently. > > > > Would it be helpful to invite John to comment on specific instances? > > > > Regards, > > Jim Vellenga > > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > James H. Vellenga 978-262-6381 > > Software Architect (FAX) 978-262-6636 > > Cadence Design Systems, Inc. vellenga@cadence.com > > 270 Billerica Rd > > Chelmsford, MA 01824-4179 > > "We all work with partial information." > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ]-----Original Message----- > > ]From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On > ]Behalf Of > > Bresticker, Shalom > > ]Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 11:34 AM > > ]To: Bresticker, Shalom; Neil.Korpusik@sun.com; sv-champions@eda.org > > ]Cc: SV-CC > > ]Subject: [sv-cc] RE: [sv-champions] Email vote - ending > August 13th ] > > ]Similarly, the diagram for 36.17 Variable select (should be > > ]36.18) shows > > ]"vpiValid" being deleted (red strikeout) in the FROM part, > ]while it > > does ]exist in Draft 6. > > ] > > ]It looks like many of the deletions are being shown in the FROM > > parts, ]while additions are being shown in the TO parts. > > ] > > ]Also, as noted above, some of the section numbers are > ]different in > > Draft ]6. > > ] > > ]Regards, > > ]Shalom > > ] > > ]> -----Original Message----- > > ]> From: owner-sv-champions@server.eda.org ]> > > [mailto:owner-sv-champions@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of ]> > Bresticker, > > Shalom ]> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 1:38 PM ]> To: > > Neil.Korpusik@Sun.COM; sv-champions@server.eda.org ]> Cc: SV-CC ]> > > Subject: RE: [sv-champions] Email vote - ending August 13th ]> ]> > > Something is not clear about Mantis 2226. > > ]> > > ]> A part of the proposal changes the details of Section > 36.16, ]> the > > VPI diagram for 36.16. > > ]> A page numbered 798 has "REPLACE diagram on next page:", ]> > > followed by pages 799-802, "WITH diagram on next page:" on ]> page > > 803, followed by pages 804-807. > > ]> > > ]> What is not clear to me is that p. 801, in the "FROM" > > ]> section, shows details 23 and 26-28 with red-strikeouts, > ]> whereas > > in Draft 6, the details exist and have not been deleted. > > ]> > > ]> I don't know whether someone thought they were supposed to be ]> > > struck out in Draft 6, or there is another proposal for Draft ]> 7 > > that strikes them out, or whether this proposal is striking ]> them > > out. > > ]> > > ]> Regards, > > ]> Shalom > > ]> > > ]> > -----Original Message----- > > ]> > From: owner-sv-champions@server.eda.org ]> > > > [mailto:owner-sv-champions@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of ]> Neil > > Korpusik ]> > Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 4:53 AM ]> > To: > > sv-champions@server.eda.org ]> > Cc: sv-sc@server.eda.org ]> > > > Subject: [sv-champions] Email vote - ending August 13th ]> > ]> > > > SystemVerilog Champions, ]> > ]> > This is a call for an > abbreviated > > email vote. As we agreed ]> to in the ]> > conference call this > > morning, this email vote will run for 6 days, ]> > ending on > > Wednesday, August 13th (7pm PST). > > ]> > > > ]> > > > ]> > List of Mantis items for a Champion's email vote: > > ]> > ------------------------------------------------- > > ]> > 1. 2226 Approve the proposal Yes ___ No ___ > > ]> > Abstain ___ > > ]> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ]> 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. > > ]> > > ]> > > ]> > > > ]--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ]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. > > ] > > ] > > ] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.Received on Tue Aug 12 14:56:11 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 12 2008 - 14:56:30 PDT