In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on
08/29/2005
at 01:08 PM, Bill Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I guess (but am not even certain of this) that *IF* you have the
>resources to do a "mass recompile", that it doesn't HURT. However,
>if doing so (and more importantly making certain that everything that
>NEEDS testing GETS tested)
I wasn't recommending recompiling in order to put new object code into
production. Neither of the two reasons that I gave for the recompile
requires testing the object code. In fact, "so that you can schedule
eventual remediation." wouldn't make much sense if you were doing the
remediation immediately.
>rather than making every application program be recompiled and
>retested
Again, I never suggested retesting as part of the compiler migration.
I suggested *scheduling* remediation of those programs that wouldn't
compile.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
