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

From: Maidment, Matthew R <matthew.r.maidment_at_.....>
Date: Mon Feb 06 2006 - 08:54:55 PST
 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Stuart Sutherland [mailto:stuart@sutherland-hdl.com] 
>Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 8:43 AM
>To: Bresticker, Shalom; Maidment, Matthew R; sv-bc@eda.org
>Subject: RE: [sv-bc] e-mail vote: closes Feb 5th
>
>
>Oops, my abstention and comments apply to item 1253, not 984.  
>I vote to approve 984, and abstain on 1253.
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Stuart Sutherland
>stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
>+1-503-692-0898
>  
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com]
>> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 8:28 AM
>> To: stuart@sutherland-hdl.com; Maidment, Matthew R; sv-bc@eda.org
>> Subject: RE: [sv-bc] e-mail vote: closes Feb 5th
>> 
>> Stu,
>> 
>> 984 has nothing to do with specify blocks, I think you mixed it up 
>> with a different one.
>> 
>> The proposals for 1297 and 1298 are to close them.
>> 
>> Shalom
>> 
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On 
>Behalf Of 
>> > Stuart Sutherland
>> > Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 6:01 PM
>> > To: Maidment, Matthew R; sv-bc@eda.org
>> > Subject: RE: [sv-bc] e-mail vote: closes Feb 5th
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Stu's votes...
>> > 
>> > > SVDB  871 _X__Yes   ___No
>> > > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=871
>> > >
>> > > SVDB  881 _X__Yes   ___No
>> > > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=881
>> > >
>> > > SVDB  882 _X__Yes   ___No
>> > > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=882
>> > >
>> > > SVDB  908 _X__Yes   ___No
>> > > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=908
>> > >
>> > > SVDB  911 ___Yes   _X__No
>> > > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=911
>> > Will change to YES with Cliff's proposed friendly 
>ammendment to the 
>> > wording.
>> > >
>> > > SVDB  912 _X__Yes   ___No
>> > > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=912
>> > >
>> > > SVDB  919 _X__Yes   ___No
>> > > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=919
>> > >
>> > > SVDB  932 __X_Yes   ___No
>> > > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=932
>> > >
>> > > SVDB  941 _X__Yes   ___No
>> > > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=941
>> > >
>> > > SVDB  942 _X__Yes   ___No
>> > > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=942
>> > >
>> > > SVDB  944 _X__Yes   ___No
>> > > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=944
>> > >
>> > > SVDB  945 _X__Yes   ___No
>> > > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=945
>> > >
>> > > SVDB  946 ___Yes   ___No
>> > > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=946
>> > >
>> > > SVDB  949 _X__Yes   ___No
>> > > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=949
>> > Would like to also inlcude Cliff's friendly ammendment to fix line 
>> > wrap problem.
>> > 
>> > >
>> > > SVDB  952 _X__Yes   ___No
>> > > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=952
>> > >
>> > > SVDB  961 _X__Yes   ___No
>> > > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=961
>> > >
>> > > SVDB  962 _X__Yes   ___No
>> > > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=962
>> > It would be helpful if the .htm file for the proposal showed a 
>> > strike-through of the old wording.
>> > >
>> > > SVDB  984 _X__Yes   ___No   _X_ Abstain
>> > > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=984
>> > The proposal sounds reasonable, but I would want to hear from 
>> > someone who is an expert on specify blocks to be sure the 
>change is 
>> > appropriate.
>> > 
>> > >
>> > > SVDB 1092 _X__Yes   ___No
>> > > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1092
>> > >
>> > > SVDB 1138 _X__Yes   ___No
>> > > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1138
>> > >
>> > > SVDB 1159 _X__Yes   ___No
>> > > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1159
>> > >
>> > > SVDB 1253 _X__Yes   ___No
>> > > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1253
>> > >
>> > > SVDB 1255 ___Yes   _X__No
>> > > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1255
>> > There is no specific proposal for editing changes.  But I 
>agree that 
>> > all UDP I/O should be called "terminals", not "ports".  
>The the VPI 
>> > (and deprecated
>> > ACC) use "terminal" to distinguish UDP I/O from module ports.
>> > 
>> > >
>> > > SVDB 1260 _X__Yes   ___No
>> > > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1260
>> > >
>> > > SVDB 1261 _X__Yes   ___No
>> > > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1261
>> > >
>> > > SVDB 1297 ___Yes   _X__No
>> > > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1297
>> > I did not see a specific proposal for editing changes.
>> > 
>> > >
>> > > SVDB 1298 ___Yes   ___No
>> > > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1298
>> > I did not see a specific proposal for editing changes.
>> > 
>> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> > Stuart Sutherland
>> > stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
>> > +1-503-692-0898
>> > 
>> 
>
Received on Mon Feb 6 08:55:11 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 06 2006 - 08:55:39 PST