In
<a90766b5039c59409110c92d47216f59044cd...@s1flokydce2k322.dm0001.info53.com>,
on 09/30/2010
at 06:06 AM, "Jousma, David" <[email protected]> said:
>It is true that there is some exposure in our maintenance strategy.
Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play.
>My issue is a potentially unnecessary wait state
I'l go so far as to agree that a message prior to the disabled wait
would be appropriate.
>And I do write solely from the customer perspective.
If I mess up when installing service, I want to know as early as
possible. IMHO the wait state is appropriate. I don't want my system
to be at risk because at another site someone blindly override holds.
--
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
