On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:09:33 -0400, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote: > >note diff3 ... but later, I did do trivial program that helped in the >process. one was given two similar sources with old & new sequence >numbers ... would generate an update for the old sequence numbers that >represented the difference between the two sources (effectively created >what was in new resequenced source release that applied to the previous >release updated old sequenced source would generate the same code). >This made integration of local source changes against new release much >simpler (since it localized just the actual source code changes w/o the >impact of the resequencing). when the local installation was done >resolving conflicts (except for sequence numbers) ... run the program in >reverse; two nearly identical source routines (except different sequence >numbers) ... old release using old sequence numbers with both update >applied to turn it into new release (with old sequence numbers) and >local updates ... against new release with new sequence numbers >... would generate local updates converted to new release sequence >numbers. > Was your "trivial program" made available to end customers, or were they compelled to reinvent it?
I've done most of these operations using SuperC with the UPDCMS8 option in place of your program; the UPDMVS8 option is practically worthless for this purpose. And once one recognizes that it's possible to rehabilitate damaged or missing sequence numbers, it's only a short logical step tp realize that one didn't need the sequence numbers in the first place. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
