On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 14:53:03 -0400, Chris Hoogendyk wrote:
> There should be no difference in the tapes. I did them all by just
> doing an `amtape daily slot nn` followed by an `amlabel daily
> Bio-Research-nnn`. The first 20 or so were all done in sequence in
> one session, and that would include the four you mention. I didn't
> even retype the commands. I used the up arrow twice to pull up the
> previous command, backspaced the number and typed a new number for
> the slot or for the tape label as appropriate.
Based on your description of when the problems started, I'm guessing the
issue is not in how the tapes were originally labeled but some fluke of
how they were used after that.
> The new tapes that I put in with the new magazines were labeled in
> the same way. Those are now out of the library, and the tapes that
> had originally been in the library were returned. That is when the
> problem occurred.
So, what I'm wondering is if there is any pattern to which tape labels
tie to the tapes used in the "new magazine" (and thus now no longer
actually in the library) and which were in the "removed and later
returned" category?
Nathan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Stratton Treadway - [email protected] - Mid-Atlantic region
Ray Ontko & Co. - Software consulting services - http://www.ontko.com/
GPG Key: http://www.ontko.com/~nathanst/gpg_key.txt ID: 1023D/ECFB6239
Key fingerprint = 6AD8 485E 20B9 5C71 231C 0C32 15F3 ADCD ECFB 6239
