In a recent note, Tom Marchant said: > Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 12:07:15 -0600 > > 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. > Suppose a more extreme case. The vendor has previously issued PTF W, which added new function in module C. Subsequently, the vendor issues PTF X, containing updated modules A and B, which newly exploit the function introduced by PTF W. But the vendor fails to declare the dependency on W, and a customer who APPLYs X but not W reports a problem. The vendor can repair this simply by issuing "++ HOLD (X) ERROR REASON(W) ...
There is no commonality of elements. Can a customer then cause a malign regression by RESTOREing W but not X? TFM appears not to prohibit this, despite the ++HOLD. I asked about this in: http://bama.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0610&L=ibm-main&P=150582 but received no definitive answer, possibly because Shane asked Kurt not to reply. -- gil -- StorageTek INFORMATION made POWERFUL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
