On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:03:34 -0500, Patrick O'Keefe wrote: > >position. My point was that design problems (at least in some parts >of IBM) are supposed to be non-APARable (and no APAR implies no >PTF). WAD is definitely BAD if there is a design defect, but "design >defect" doesn't officially exist in those parts of IBM. In those cases >people like Peter and Jim (and, luckily, many others) have to ignore >or fight their own bureaucracy to help us. > What happens when IBM doesn't control the specification? This is much the case with Unix System Services, where IBM aspires to POSIX conformance. Can a manifest deviation from POSIX yet conform to a derivative design document (by a flawed derivation), and thus yet get WAD?
-- 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
