Re: 1076a Merge with 1076-1999 Possibility

Bob Klenke (rhklenke@vcu.edu)
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 14:25:02 -0400

I'm an outsider on this issue, having not been involved in the work
towards getting 1076a this far, but it seems to me that having fewer
revisions around is a big plus from a marketing perspective - we're very
much involved in the language issues and we seemed to be having some
trouble sorting it out at the meeting. Think about the novice user who
has to figure out if his/her simulator is 1076a and 1076-99 or just
1076a. The proliferation of multiple versions of the documentation is
also an issue.

My vote is to roll it all into 1076-1999.

Bob

"Bailey, Stephen A (Steve)" wrote:
>
> 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

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Bob Klenke, Associate Professor     Dept. of Electrical Engineering
                                     School of Engineering
 Phone: (804) 827-7007               601 West Main St., Room 222
 Fax:   (804) 828-4269               Virginia Commonwealth University
 Email: rhklenke@vcu.EDU             Richmond, VA 23284-3072
----------------------------------------------------------------------