In a recent note, Joseph W. Beiter said: > Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 13:56:17 -0600 > > "...But the vendor fails to declare the dependency..." > > Point right on. This is the vendors responsibility no? Else who/how to > protect the integrity of the maintenance chain? The customer? > If you're saying that vendors should never make mistakes, well, yes, but they (we) (even IBM) do. If vendors never made mistakes, there would be no use for ++ HOLD ERROR.
> My original post was to try to understand other conditions where this > would be necessary as a standard way of doing business. It sounds like the > answer is no. Exceptions not withstanding, we should always expect that a > pe'd ptf will be removed from the chain or sup'd by the correcting > maintenance. thanks. > "Exceptions not withstanding". Well, of course. Except for the exceptions everything is unexceptional. I agree with Tom Marchant in observing that it may be quite routine, not even exceptional for a corrective SYSMOD not to SUPersede another SYSMOD in which it resolves an error. It would be possible always to SUPersede, but in the case where an error in a large SYSMOD can be corrected by a smaller SYSMOD, I consider the minimalist approach prudent. -- 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
