On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:05:05 -0600, Tom Marchant wrote: >On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:23:05 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote: > >>On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 07:12:21 -0600, Tom Marchant wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 00:11:52 -0500, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote: >>> >>>>This backtracking continues until you find a set of PTFs >>>>in the PRE/SUP chain that contains all the Elements (and only them) >>>>that is being backed out - These copies of the elements are what are >>>>used. >>> >>>There is no requirement that the elements that are >>>replaced during RESTORE come from a PTF that contains exactly the >>>same elements that are in the PTF being RESTOREd. >>> >>Read again. He didn't say "a PTF"; he said "a set of PTFs". > >Ok. He said "a set of PTFs in the PRE/SUP chain that contains all the >Elements (and only them)". That is not what SMP/E does. > He was elliptical as well as ungrammatical (there's no plausible antecedent for the pronoun "that"). I take at least the latter as an indication that he was struggling to express what he had correctly observed.
Let me give an example. Suppose after I have APPLYed PTFs A, B, and C in sequence I detect a bug. I'd like to isolate the causing PTF. So I do what is necessary to RESTORE C and test again. The bug is still there. So I'd like to RESTORE B and test yet again. But I can't because in order to RESTORE C I had to ACCEPT B, and now it can't be RESTOREd. This is terrible; it's a deficiency in design. Your assertion, "That is not what SMP/E does," is not a refutation of Robert's complaints and mine, but a confirmation that it fails to support needed function. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
