RE: [sv-bc] Issue Review Buckets - Reviews due by April 10

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 11:08 PM
> To: Rich, Dave; sv-bc@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Issue Review Buckets - Reviews due by April 10
> 
> I never implied that priority and severity are connected.
[DR>] Sorry, that's just part of my standard shpiel on priority versus
severity.
> 
> I just said that we had only defined the meaning of 'immediate'
priority
> and 'major' severity without defining the meaning of other values.
[DR>] Urgent is less important than immediate, high is less important
than urgent. What else is there to know? :) Severity is just a comment
to the reader and is completely subjective.
> 
> Regarding severity, we described 'major' severity as meaning a risk of
> differing implementations, I think. That is not relevant for
> enhancements.
[DR>] It is relevant when some implementations start putting in these
enhancements before they are in the LRM. Allowing 'for(;;)' is a minor
enhancement because there are very few ways to interpret that. Adding
2-state wires is a major enhancement; there are lots places to diverge
if we all don't agree on the semantics.
> 
> Regarding clarifications, the question was first whether we should be
> using that classification or not. Regarding your severities,
> clarifications can also be major or minor, I think.
[DR>] Again, I use clarification as a comment to the reader that this
issue does not change any existing syntax or semantics. It may add
semantics when they were previously underspecified.
> 
> Shalom
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rich, Dave [mailto:Dave_Rich@mentor.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 10:03 AM
> > To: Bresticker, Shalom; sv-bc@eda.org
> > Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Issue Review Buckets - Reviews due by
> > April 10
> >
> >
> > IMHO, Priority and Severity are independent classifications.
> >
> > Priority is analogous to the stratified event queue. The
> > committee
> > should only be discussing immediate issues, followed by urgent
> > issues,
> > and so on. The higher priority you give, the faster it should
> > go through
> > rthe committee.
> >
> > Severity describes the impact the issue will have on the end
> > user or
> > implementer, regardless of whether it is an errata or
> > enhancement. It's
> > mainly for the benefit of the people reading the proposal.
> >
> > A Clarification indicates no real change in functionality, and
> > should
> > only have one of the 't' severities, text, trivial, or tweak.
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On
> > Behalf Of
> > > Bresticker, Shalom
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 9:54 PM
> > > To: sv-bc@eda.org
> > > Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Issue Review Buckets - Reviews due by
> > April 10
> > >
> > > Also, 'Type' field allows value 'Clarification' as well as
> > Errata and
> > > Enhancement. Maybe we should use that classification as well.
> > >
> > > > How should 'severity' be used for enhancement requests?
> > > >
> > > > What other severities besides 'major' and what other
> > priorities
> > > > besides
> > > > 'immediate' should we use?
> > >
> > > Shalom