>From: "Michael \(Mac\) McNamara" <mcnamara@cadence.com> >There is certainly truth to this (importance of fixing current P1800 >errata). > >However I expect the act of merging the standards will reveal additional >errata, as text intended to describe the same thing or interacting >things is brought together, and the ill-fitting seams become evident. I agree that integrating the standards will reveal problems. However, I don't agree that this is the best thing to do first. In other areas such as hardware and software design, it is generally best to debug the separate components/units as much as possible, before trying to integrate them together. >We have a very well qualified estimate from the most knowledgeable >person on the planet that such an effort would require 6 man weeks. I don't believe that estimate takes into account the issue that you have raised above. There will be problems revealed by the attempt to merge, and some of those will require decisions by the committee. That will take calendar time, and will take committee resources that might be better spent on higher priority errata within 1800. If the merging is a pure text merge, without really integrating the sections fully, then it has minimal value compared to just publishing the two LRMs in a single binder. If the merging is done at the level that would be useful, then it will require far more technical input from the committees than this estimate allows for. Steven Sharp sharp@cadence.comReceived on Mon Jan 30 15:14:55 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 30 2006 - 15:15:21 PST