RE: [sv-bc] Please respond with your #1 SV-BC enhancement priority (due by end of January)

Brad,

By some people's definition of "enhancement", anything that improves the
quality or clarity of a product is an enhancement. In essence, there is
no difference between fixing a bug and adding a new feature, and I don't
think it's worth arguing what we call an issue.

The mantis system is currently tracking 935 such issues. In my opinion,
both users and developers would be best served if the next revision of
the standard worked to resolving those issues down towards 0. There is a
wide divergence in SystemVerilog support and users are restricting
themselves to a subset of what is supported uniformly across most
implementations.

I don't think we'll be able to address such a large list in one revision
of the standard. Clearly, every issue has its priority, and I don't
think I even have the time to prioritize a list in a month.

My suggestion is to document a policy for setting priorities in the next
PAR. Those that clarify existing features of the standard and lead
towards consistent implementations should have highest priority. If as a
result of that process we need to add a new feature, that is fine. But
we should not be leading off the process with a new feature in mind.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Brad
> Pierce
> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 1:00 PM
> To: sv-bc@eda.org
> Subject: [sv-bc] Please respond with your #1 SV-BC enhancement
priority
> (due by end of January)
>
> Background 1: http://www.eda-stds.org/sv-ieee1800/hm/0956.html
> Background 2: http://bit.ly/7RDGox
> Background 3: http://tinyurl.com/sv-bc-enhancement-requests
>
> Because of the reasons in the above links, Matt and I need your
feedback
> on what SV-BC subscribers consider to be their #1 SV-BC enhancement
> priority for the next revision, and why. We'll roll it up into a short
> presentation to the Working Group.
>
> The rules --
>
> 0) This a public process, so all replies go to the reflector, not
just
> to Matt or me.
> 1) You must include the number of a Mantis item. If your #1 issue
is
> not yet in Mantis, add it first, or get someone to add it for you.
> 2) You must include a reason why this enhancement is critical for
> users.
> 3) Replies due by end of January.
> 4) If you believe no SV-BC enhancements should be made in the next
> revision, that's an OK answer, but it needs a reason, too.
>
> Thanks for your help,
>
> -- Brad
>
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.