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

I added a bugnote to 1298, noting that the reference to 1299 was a typo
and should have been 1004, and that 1004 contains a reference to 1072.

With the cross-references fixed, I now vote to approve 1298.

Shalom


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On
> Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 7:49 PM
> To: Warmke, Doug; sv-bc@eda.org
> Subject: 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.
> > >