In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 08/29/2005 at 01:08 PM, Bill Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I guess (but am not even certain of this) that *IF* you have the >resources to do a "mass recompile", that it doesn't HURT. However, >if doing so (and more importantly making certain that everything that >NEEDS testing GETS tested) I wasn't recommending recompiling in order to put new object code into production. Neither of the two reasons that I gave for the recompile requires testing the object code. In fact, "so that you can schedule eventual remediation." wouldn't make much sense if you were doing the remediation immediately. >rather than making every application program be recompiled and >retested Again, I never suggested retesting as part of the compiler migration. I suggested *scheduling* remediation of those programs that wouldn't compile. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html> We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html