David, You probably have better insight in this area and hence accurate information.
Anyhow, all that I have heard/read over the last few months since BMCUW w.r.t. CMDB 2.x and ITSM 6.x being supported have been indicative of the ITSM 6.x patch being most likely a white paper (including some definition files) - hence my point of reference. Cheers, -- Shyam ----- Original Message ----- From: Easter, David Newsgroups: gmane.comp.crm.arsystem.general To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:58 AM Subject: Re: CMDB 2.0 compatibility with ARS 6.x... (Corrected to Change 6.0) ** > I would not hold my breath for the white paper It's not just a white paper to make BMC applications compatible with CMDB 2.0x. It will also require the applications to be patched. While I'm not involved in that area of development, the latest I've heard is that it's still scheduled and has not been cancelled. My guess would be that something official would be announced in late April or early May. Thanks, -David J. Easter Sr. Product Manager, Service Management Business Unit BMC Software, Inc. The opinions, statements, and/or suggested courses of action expressed in this E-mail do not necessarily reflect those of BMC Software, Inc. My voluntary participation in this forum is not intended to convey a role as a spokesperson, liaison or public relations representative for BMC Software, Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Cook Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:21 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: CMDB 2.0 compatibility with ARS 6.x... (Corrected to Change 6.0) ** I think you're probably right, Shyam. It probably wouldn't be delayed this long unless there were some strategic concerns at play. For my $0.02, there are customers who have no intention of upgrading ITSM beyond v6 for the time being, understand that there is no easy upgrade path, and yet they would like the much improved CMDB CDM and enhanced functionality it offers for as long as they are on ITSM 6. If support is such a major concern (and I am not at all saying it shouldn't be), then perhaps the white paper needs to include caveats that "Support on this is limited to.....". Then let the customers decide if they have the bandwidth and expertise available to fly pretty much solo on it, or wait until they want to upgrade ITSM. Of course, experienced customers know that the first time or two through a new process like this, they're pretty much finding the bugs that QA did not anyway, and helping support to know how to navigate the minefields, so maybe they should release this in a limited fashion to a couple of high-profile companies that are willing to trade the extra work in return for getting this done early. Of course, by the time that process is finished, it may be a completely moot point anyway, as ITSM 6 will be rolling toward the end of the supported products line. Rick On 3/21/07, Shyam Attavar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Joe, I am also eagerly awaiting the white paper that will support running ITSM 6.x on CMDB 2.x. However, I have heard that there are concerns about the complexity from a support perspective and BMC is re-evaluating this compatibility. Furthermore the upgrade path from such a configuration to ITSM 7.x or higher. I would not hold my breath for the white paper Cheers, -- Shyam ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe DeSouza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: gmane.comp.crm.arsystem.general To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 4:40 PM Subject: CMDB 2.0 compatibility with ARS 6.x... (Corrected to Change 6.0) > Disregard my previous email... my question actually is is 6.0 Change > running on a 7.x ARS platform compatible with CMDB 2.0? > > I know this might not be supported if you go strictly according to the > compatibility matrix but am wondering if this combination could be made > workable either directly or using some sort of a workaround.. Any good > reasons besides the compatibility matrix why it would not work? > > Joe > __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
