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

From: Stuart Sutherland <stuart_at_.....>
Date: Mon Feb 06 2006 - 08:00:54 PST
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 08:01:04 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 06 2006 - 08:03:09 PST