See below...
Clark Kidd wrote:
John Eells wrote:
Yes, we absolutely do still consider requirements valuable, and we DO
use them when prioritizing work for upcoming releases. Buy me a beer at
SCIDS in Denver and I'll tell you what happened with this one.
Thanks John.
It's good to know that the SHARE requirement has not gone the way of the
punched card. Even when I was writing my comment, I knew that NOTHING is easy
for IBM. I'm sure that somewhere in the IBM universe this simple enhancement
request got bogged down under a mountain of managers, lawyers, accountants, or
other bureaucrats.
I'm pretty sure none of the above had much to do with this particular
one. (And Denver's coming up pretty soon. ;-)
I put this in the same category as the request to expand the 100 byte PARM
limit -- users want it, implementation should be easy, but it's not going to
happen. Why don't you just come clean and admit that you lost the MVS source
code in 1992! :-)
As I am told often, many things seem as though they should be easy when
you don't have to write, test, and support the code (grin).
<tongue-in-cheek>
Source code? What's that? We're supposed to have source code?
</tongue-in-cheek>
<snip>
--
John Eells
z/OS Technical Marketing
IBM Poughkeepsie
[email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
