Stu is correct. The proposal for issue 641 should have included the removal of the line defining the formula for Bp. Leaving the formula there is not incorrect just superfluous and unnecessary. Mehdi, can you please add a note to amend issue 641 to instruct removal of the formula defining Bp. Arturo ----- Original Message ----- From: Mehdi Mohtashemi To: stuart@sutherland-hdl.com ; sv-ec@eda.org Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 10:30 PM Subject: RE: [sv-ec] Question on editing for Mantis 641 Stu, I believe the line should be removed since we have removed the cross-auto-bin-max item. We will review and let you know by tomorrow, by the bug-note. thanks, - Mehdi -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Sutherland [mailto:stuart@sutherland-hdl.com] Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 12:48 PM To: sv-ec@eda.org Subject: [sv-ec] Question on editing for Mantis 641 I have implemented the changes described in the attachment to Mantis item 641. I think there might be an error to this instructions, however. The changes eliminate the use of Bp, but leave in the line defining the formula for Bp. Should that line be removed, as well? If so, please add a bug-note to make that correction, and advise me of the bug-note. Stu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Stuart Sutherland stuart@sutherland-hdl.com +1-503-692-0898Received on Tue May 3 10:55:19 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 03 2005 - 10:55:27 PDT