In
<ofab5d85dd.e9f08605-on8525765d.0042ff46-8525765d.00442...@metlife.com>,
on 10/28/2009
at 08:24 AM, Andy White <[email protected]> said:
>We are debating within out department about doing dynamic changes with
>SET PROG LNKLST and wanted to know how other shops might be handling
>it.
My approach to systems programming is that it is better to be a live
coward than a dead duck. When IBM says that UPDATE JOBNAME=* is dangerous,
I prefer that someone else conduct the experiment.
>Some of us though issue the UPDATE JOBNAME=*
It's not my dog.
>forces all jobs/stcs running to switch to the active one,
Correct.
>We would like to start to do this in production, less IPLS,
Maybe, and maybe *more* IPL's, depending on whether you find out the hard
way why IBM gave us the warning.
--
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
