The suggestion to create a new super-PTF that tries to straighten everything out should work (in principle) mechanically, but as a vendor I would studiously avoid that sort of kludge because it enshrines a developer's experimental efforts in a sysmod. We all try various things that don't work. No use turning a PTF into a trial-and-error blog. ;-)
On the other hand, if the earlier PTF(s) had actually been shipped to and installed by customers, then a super-PTF would be need to get them kosher again. That 'super-seed' word, by the way, seems to go either way according to my Random House Unabridged. Should be a gimme in a spelling bee... . . . JO.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 626-302-7535 Office 323-715-0595 Mobile [EMAIL PROTECTED] IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> wrote on 01/19/2006 11:21:48 AM: > On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:35:28 -0800, Skip Robinson <JO.Skip. > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <snip> > > Interesting. We also discovered our problem when we received a > GIM32501E message. (Hmmm. M&C says "SUPERSEDE"; the actual message > says "SUPERCEDE".) Feels like a SEV4 APAR to me. I vote with M&C.) > But in our case, the error was detected only the second time we > attempted to APPLY the reworked PTF; the CSI was already damaged. > > I also tried John Eells's suggestion of a coverup PTF; not a new one > -- the original offender hadn't shipped yet, so I was free to > experiment with it. By adding enough elements, I got the APPLY > REDO to work without the GIM32501E. I then did the RESTORE and > again tried to APPLY the smaller version. Once again, SMP/E > reported GIM32501E on some (but not all) of the MOD elements it > earlier reported. <snip> > > -- 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
