On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Paul Gilmartin <0000000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > I supported that position. But I'll also speak from the other side of > my mouth. For example, HLASM prints a PTF level in its signon page. > This implies that every PTF is a level set: it SUPersedes its immediate > predecessor even if it doesn't replace unchanged CSECTs. > > From the developer's point of view, suppose I supply 10 PTFS which > I believe are noninteracting. No PREs; no SUPs; they satisfy SMP/E's > criteria; no BYPASS( ID ) needed because each modifies a different > CSECT. With APPLY SELECT( ... ) a customer can install any of over > 1000 different configurations. Of these, how many can he be confident > the vendor has tested. Realistically, with luck, 11. > > -- gil
A minimal consistent set of patches would require: One member contains the overall PTF level. Every PTF verifies for the previous PTF and updates it. Instead of zapping all members with the PTF even if not changed. -- Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
