RE: [sv-bc] e-mail vote: closes Feb 5th

I did not check it yet, but if so, that is fine.
The problem was that 1299 was referenced instead of 1004.

Shalom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On
> Behalf Of Warmke, Doug
> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 7:41 PM
> To: sv-bc@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-bc] e-mail vote: closes Feb 5th
> 
> Shalom,
> 
> The idea was to nullify 1298, since it is redundant with other
> items.
> The action in the minutes was to transfer the discussion of
> 1298 into
> one of the other items, so that it would be preserved.  I chose
> 1072.
> 
> Now, I added Bug Notes to both 1298 as well as 1004,
> referencing them
> to each other.
> 
> We can close 1298 at the next meeting, as a redundant item.
> 
> Regards,
> Doug
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 4:44 AM
> > To: Warmke, Doug; sv-bc@eda.org
> > Subject: RE: [sv-bc] e-mail vote: closes Feb 5th
> >
> > I repeat: 1299 is not relevant. It has no connection to 1072
> and 1298,
> > which deal with bit-extension. If you look at the original
> > minutes, you
> > will find that the other issue which was to be dealt with was
> Mantis
> > 1004.
> >
> > Shalom
> >
> >
> > > The bulk of 1298 was copied into 1072.
> > > Only a small offshoot item was copied into 1299.
> >