Well, the way that it was originally is that you had to restore both foo and bar, so the PE in foo had no relevance to RESTORE processing. If you want to enhance RESTORE processing to allow a partial restore then it becomes an issue.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [[email protected]] on behalf of Jay Maynard [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 10:23 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: SMP/E oddity? There is no right answer to this one: SMP/E cannot differentiate between this scenario and the one where foo is OK and bar is broken, or where foo has a PE that's relatively benign but bar has an issue that's worse than the problem with foo. The sysprog who's doing this has to know what he's doing. Just like always. On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 8:50 AM Seymour J Metz <[email protected]> wrote: > Partial restore is a can of worms. What happens if foo has a PE, bar > supersedes the associated APAR, the APPLY only installed foo because bar > had been received and you now restore bar? > -- Jay Maynard ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
