On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 11:47:58 -0600, Joseph W. Beiter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>are there conditions where a pe'd ptf is not sup'd but instead marked per >by the correting ptf ? a 3rd party software vendor is attempting to make >this business as usual and I'd rather they stuck to convention. What's to >prevent regression of the fixing sysmod without regressing the pe'd ptf? >thanks. > Do you mean PRE? Suppose PTF X includes modules A and B. It becomes PE. The code in B is ok, but the code in A needs to be replaced. The vendor then has two choices. Either SUP X with a PTF Y containing A and B or provide a PTF containing just A with a PRE to pick up B. Do you mean regressing or restoring? If you're talking about regression, I have to ask what causes the regression. If BYPASS(ID) or a poorly constructed PTF thar re-introduces the error of PTF X, all bets are off. In the case of RESTORE, if you have already ACCEPTed PTF X but not Y, you can certainly restore PTF Y. Indeed, there might be a case to do exactly that, if PTF Y introduced another problem that was worse in your shop than the error introduced by PTF X. -- Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
