At this time, I am all for merging it into 1076-1999, given that both
are due soon.
- bhasker
> From owner-stds-vasg@majordomo.ieee.org Thu Jul 29 13:33 EDT 1999
> From: "Bailey, Stephen A (Steve)" <sbailey@veribest.com>
> To: stds-vasg@ieee.org, svwg@vhdl.org
> Subject: 1076a Merge with 1076-1999 Possibility
> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 11:57:01 -0500
> X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
> Sender: owner-stds-vasg@majordomo.ieee.org
> Reply-To: stds-vasg@majordomo.ieee.org
> X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <stds-vasg@majordomo.ieee.org>
> X-Listname: stds-vasg
> X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majordomo@majordomo.ieee.org
> X-Moderator-Address: stds-vasg-approval@majordomo.ieee.org
> Content-Type: text
> Content-Length: 2322
>
>
> All,
>
> As discussed at the last VASG meeting, getting 1076a completed through
> RevCom has run into some delays. The primary reason for the delay is the
> fact that we did 1076a as a supplement (based on guidance from the IEEE many
> years ago), but our RevCom mentor is concerned that 1076a fits better as a
> normal revision. (Based on his description of a revision and supplement, I
> would agree. Too bad we didn't get that advice earlier on ;-(. Although
> our mentor is exploring possibilities for completing 1076a as a supplement,
> I thought I'd investigate an alternative with both VASG and SVWG.
>
> In New Orleans, it was suggested (sorry I forget who first suggested it, but
> multiple people thought it might be a good idea) that we simply stop any
> further work on 1076a and simply roll the 1076a work into the 1076-1999
> revision. The purpose of this email is to assess the sense of the VASG and
> SVWG groups as to whether this would be a good or bad thing to do.
>
> PROS:
> We save some work on the part of the volunteers and IEEE administration.
> (No need to re-circulate 1076a. No need to ensure 1076a document is
> modified to meet RevCom needs and objections. I believe some people prefer
> it this way as it is one less VHDL variation to worry about -- fewer
> compiler/simulator switches.)
>
> CONS:
> The main objection I can think of is that people who voted for 1076a being
> concerned that something that passed ballot was not made part of the
> standard. Although the intention would be to simply move the shared
> variable changes from 1076a directly into 1076-1999, the balloting process
> for 1076-1999 would open the entire shared variable changes again. While I
> would expect no changes in the results wrt the 1076a shared variable
> implementation being the same in 1076-1999, this cannot be guaranteed.
>
> Please let me know your opinion (of course, you can share it with the VASG
> and SVWG groups as well). If there appears to be sufficient support, I will
> call a formal vote on the issue.
>
> Steve Bailey
> HDL Solutions Marketing Manager
> Free Evaluation of VB VHDL: http://www.veribest.com/vhdl.html
> VeriBest Inc.
> The EDA Systems Company
> 6101 Lookout Rd.
> Boulder, CO 80301
> 303-581-2467 (voice) 303-581-9143 (fax)
> 303-588-2001 (mobile)
> mailto:sbailey@veribest.com http://www.veribest.com
>
>