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
>