On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:55:27 -0500, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote: > >My biggest gripe with the design of SMP/E is the use of a RESTORE >design that will back-out a PTF (or set of PTFs) to get back to the >state you were in (or would have been in) before you APPLY'ed the >PTF(s). Right now you must RESTORE PTFs that you will just turn >around a reAPPLY just to RESTORE a PTF that PREs or SUPs the PTFs. A >better design is to see what SYSMOD owns each element that is being >RESTOREd and just do an automatic APPLY of only that element instead >of removing elements that are not contained in the PTF being RESTOREd. > I agree wholeheartedly. RESTORE should be "Undo", as we know it on our desktop systems. I grant that it's logically impossible to RESTORE to a level of an element that's been PURGEd from the SMPPTS; otherwise, if the content is in the SMPPTS (and/or TLIBs) it should be permitted to RESTORE it. I suspect the CSI simply fails to retain information needed for this task.
However, Kurt Q. is apt to point out, as he has done several times, that this was not the design objective of RESTORE; it's more like "Revert" as we know it on some of our desktop systems. He will be supported in this by several True Blue followers of this list. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
