Maybe I should quit butting in here, but these comments touch a nerve. > "That is not what SMP/E does," is not a refutation of Robert's complaints and mine, but a confirmation that it fails to support needed function.
When I had a bunch of programmers working for me I would sometimes have conversations like the following: Programmer: "You don't understand; that's not how the program works." Me: "I understand that's not how the program works; I'm asking you to change the program." Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 8:24 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Error apply ZAP ... Let me give an example. Suppose after I have APPLYed PTFs A, B, and C in sequence I detect a bug. I'd like to isolate the causing PTF. So I do what is necessary to RESTORE C and test again. The bug is still there. So I'd like to RESTORE B and test yet again. But I can't because in order to RESTORE C I had to ACCEPT B, and now it can't be RESTOREd. This is terrible; it's a deficiency in design. Your assertion, "That is not what SMP/E does," is not a refutation of Robert's complaints and mine, but a confirmation that it fails to support needed function. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
