RE: [sv-ac] ISSUE SV-AC 380 -- needs resolution...

Sorry Ed, in another meeting, could not call in.

About the proposal: This is what we agreed to last time (also in notes
on bugID), we just need help with the right "language" for this category
as a ballot response.... 

That said I vote to *accept*.

Thx.
-Bassam.

--
Dr. Bassam Tabbara
Architect, R&D
Novas Software Inc.
(408) 467-7893

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Eduard Cerny
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 8:51 AM
To: sv-ac@eda.org
Cc: 'Ed Cerny'; Surrendra.Dudani@synopsys.com; 'Faisal Haque (fhaque)';
'Karen Pieper'
Subject: [sv-ac] ISSUE SV-AC 380 -- needs resolution... 

Hello,

since nobody dialed in... we need to resolve the last issue #380 in
Manits - please have a look. 

My proposal is: to inidcate that no method is listed among keywords and
in BNF and close the issue.

Vote on this proposal: 
accept    reject


ed

--------------- 

Hi,

I have reviwed again the minutes from 4/14/05 and discussed with
Surrendra.
It appears that both 670 and 626 have been settled but not entered in
the DB. 

The only item is 380 which was discussed and there is a bug note how BNF
could be augmented, but I do not see any resolution. 

I propose that we have a brief conf. call tomorrow, Wednesday, May 11,
at 11h30EDT (8h30 am PDT) to resolve issue #380.

Phone 888 635 9997 domestic, 763-315-6815 international.
Code 2638198#

Best regards,

ed

------------------

Hello,

It appears that SV-AC issues #626 and #670 in the Mantis database need
to be voted on. 
http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view_all_bug_page.php
Both issues have proposals attached in the DB. I think that we  can vote
by email. Please do so today:

issue     Accept   Reject
626
670


Issue #380 should be closed as no object methods are listed in BNF or
among keywords. Let me know if you disagree.


Issues #228, #664 and #665 need an editorial correction (as far as I
could tell), so I assigned it to Stu. Let me know if you think that it
needs more discussion. 

Thank you,

ed