I don't know what date the Sterling acquisition refers to but in the past couple of years I was still receiving maintenance in ZAP format for CA-1 5.2 (before it went out of support). Thankfully it was a very small number of SYSMODs.
-----Original Message----- From: Russell Witt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 5:35 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Non-SMP/e packaging Bruce, That brings up the whole discussion of what is better for maintenance, zaps or csect-replacements. CA-1 (and TLMS and other BrightStor products) all switched to csect-replacements instead of zap's after the Sterling acquisition (who acquired who is still a subject open to discussion). With the speed and availability of the internet and email and ftp; it really has made things much easier. It is just as easy and safer to give a client a csect-replacement (I don't want to say load-module replacement since we might only replace one element in a multi-csect load-module) then to send them a zap. And with zaps you are left with either having to have each zap to an element have a pre-req to the previous zap to the same element or use BYPASS all the time. And what is the difference between downloading and applying (one at a time) a dozen zap's to get the latest version applied or downloading a single csect-replacement that is a SUP for all the previous maintenance applied to that csect? Doing a dozen applies seems a lot harder and prone to error then a single apply of a csect-replacement. Russell Witt CA-1 Level-2 Support Manager ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
