I always use the vanilla HOLDSYS with no qualifications. On the other hand, I'm comfortable with letting sysmods fail for 'obvious' reasons like missing co-reqs that are not yet available. RC 8 is not scary if you can see in the CAUSER report that life will go on for now. Frankly, I'm suspicious of a sizable APPLY that gets RC 0. Something must be getting overlooked. ;-)
. . JO.Skip Robinson SCE Infrastructure Technology Services Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 626-302-7535 Office 323-715-0595 Mobile [email protected] From: Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: 04/04/2011 03:08 PM Subject: SMP/E BYPASS( HOLDSYS( <reason-list> ) ) Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> Why do programmers use "BYPASS( HOLDSYS( <reason-list> ) )" rather than merely BYPASS( HOLDSYSTEM )? Are there some reason codes to which they particularly want to be alerted while others can be routinely bypassed by appearing in the list? What's the process? Perhaps first: APPLY CHECK BYPASS( HOLDSYS( <ordinary-reasons> ) ) ..., then resolve the unusual reason codes (GIM35965I) and do APPLY BYPASS( HOLDSYSTEM ) ...? (Just wondering what we should supply in our JCL samples.) (In internal testing of PTFs, I'm inclined to supply a list to detect typos in ++HOLD SYSTEM REASON( bogus ) ... MCS.) Thanks, gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
