In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 06/12/2007
at 06:55 AM, Russell Witt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>The entire question of how well should we document IBM utilities and
>procedures was discussed just today regarding GDG's. We have some
>utilities (such as TMSCOPY to backup the TMC) were we recommend
>creating GDG's to keep some number of backup copies. It was asked if
>we should give examples of how to define GDG's in our manuals for
>those system-programmers that have never defined a GDG. This morning,
>I stood on the "NO" side but am starting to wonder if that was
>correct.
I would advise caution. It's much safer to refer people to the vendor
documentation, and I've seen a lot of 3rd party documentation that was
ambiguous, incomplete or just plain wrong.
>What IEBUPDTE does
Be careful to distinguish between the general behavior of IEBUPDTE and
the restricted subset that SMP/E supports. This is a case where I
would strongly urge pointers to the DFSMS Utilities documentation and
to the SMP/E documentation.
>Why do this instead of simply replacing the entire module?
There's a third alternative that you might consider; ship both an exit
with a COPY statement and a comment-only member to be included by the
COPY. The customer could then do a usermod replacing the entire copy
file. YMMV.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
