On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 11:07:34 -0400, Kurt Quackenbush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmm, I think I see your point. But more useful? Not so sure. This
doesn't eliminate the need to create the dummy PTF containing the
++IFREQ in your hypothetical example, but it could provide a means for a
What is the correct process when a SYSMOD is discovered post-release
to have a corequisite in a FMID other than its own? Is the developer's
only recourse to create a dummy PTF to bear the ++IF ... REQ for the
SYSMOD in the other function and let that resolve a ++HOLD ERROR?
Yes.
snip
It
What is the correct process when a SYSMOD is discovered post-release
to have a corequisite in a FMID other than its own? Is the developer's
only recourse to create a dummy PTF to bear the ++IF ... REQ for the
SYSMOD in the other function and let that resolve a ++HOLD ERROR?
I read:
#2.8
, 2006 9:40 AM
Subject: SMP/E ++HOLD ERROR for Cross-FMID Requirement
What is the correct process when a SYSMOD is discovered post-release
to have a corequisite in a FMID other than its own? Is the developer's
only recourse to create a dummy PTF to bear the ++IF ... REQ for the
SYSMOD in the other
4 matches
Mail list logo
