On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 12:53:46 -0400, Arthur T. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On 13 Sep 2006 06:39:32 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main >(Message-ID:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Cole) wrote: > >>I guess I have to take strong exception to your >>characterization of my suggestion as a "misuse" of SMP/E. >>Yes, it is different than "normal", > >>In any case, my process uses proper SMP commands and >>packaging with no degradation of SMP/E capabilities. It's >>not like I'm suggesting that nonsupported interfaces or >>methods be used. But why does it require that previously received maintenance be REJECTed and that previously APPLY'ed maintenance be RESTORed? > > Using a system in a way that was never envisioned by >the creators can be brilliant innovation. >It can also be what is termed "gaming the system"... Well said >>In fact, the same goes for the large shops as well. Even >>the dedicated SMP jockeys appreciate the exceedingly low >>impact that the SMP/E phase of z/XDC's installation >>process has on their lives. > > That will vary from person to person. If you said, >"Even some dedicated ...", instead of "Even the dedicated >...", I'd agree with you. I'm not sure where I'd stand >with "most" instead of "some". > > Seeing that no one else, here, is jumping in to agree >with me, I may have to accept "most". I, for one, agree with you, Arthur. > > You've found a technique that you like and that gets >very little negative comment. I can't, and probably >shouldn't, argue with that. So, I'll stop. > Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
