On Jan 14, 2008, at 2:26 PM, Mark Zelden wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:15:51 -0600, Ed Gould
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
------------------SNIP-----------------------------
The real problem I've run into is that many sysprogs think you
should
never ACCEPT anything. I don't know where / when that was taught
to sysprogs, but you'd be amazed how many live by that philosophy.
--------------SNIP-------------------
Mark:
I think it has to do with these two reasons.
1. There is *NEVER* enough time after implementation to do so.
b.s. Virtually all the work (research time, reviewing holds etc.)
is with
apply, not accept. And that is only for "large" products.
Mark, I dislike to disagree with you but here is just (one) of the
time consuming issues I have run into with accepting PTFS. Maybe its
time to go PDSE with them (as much as I dislike it). But more often
than not (especially with product) that the dlib needs to have more
directory blocks than it has. You must manually increase them and
then restart the accept. You also *MUST* look at the listing for
every little non zero return code. Some times 4 is OK and sometimes
its not . In any case it is time consuming. The last thing that I run
into quite a bit is any assemblies that are done must be triple
checked to make sure the correct macro's are picked up. I sort of
wish SMPe would use an alternate set for syslib for accepts.
2. The proverbial it worked last year before you put the maintenance
on just go back the point and run my job.
?? Accept doesn't affect the running system / tgt libs.
I guess I didn't put it distinctly enough. I know it does NOT affect
TGT libraries. But I was trying to say (and apparently
unsuccessfully) it does not work on the CURRENT system. In order to
make it work the manager tells you you *MUST* back off the apply (for
the modules not all) it can get dicey telling a manager that you
can't go back because a fix has been accepted, especially if the job
is extremely important. If you start talking about a separate LPAR
etc they go through the roof what they want is results not excuses
and trying to tell them it can't be done is like nailing a coffin
shut and your inside it. Managers don't like "no" and no amount of
excuse(s) is/are acceptable. The PC world can get away with it we
can't and don't you dare even bring up the PC world issue either
(they are gods gift to corporations).
Ed
#2 is is typically some really important user and management has to
roll over and try and please him.
??? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
I guess since you did not understand the first item you won't
understand the rest. I clarified (I hope) the first item, I hope this
clarifies this item,
Ed
---------SNIP--------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
