The CAUSER report is the papal encyclical. If there are utility errors, they will be enumerated in sufficient detail to ferret them out in minutes. Still way less trouble than building an exclude list, which leaves you to investigate utility errors anyway.
. . . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 323-715-0595 Mobile [email protected] [email protected] > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin > Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 04:39 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Bulk] Re: PTF error clarification > > On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 14:59:52 -0800, Skip Robinson wrote: > > > >This is a hot button of mine: going to extraordinary lengths to second > >guess SMPE. Like Santa Claus, SMPE knows who's been naughty and who's > been nice. > >Goodies and lumps of coal will be distributed accordingly. GROUPEXTEND > >is > >*always* in order. There's nothing wrong with RC 8. Resolvable hold > >chains will be applied; unresolvable ones will be not. It's an utter > >waste of time to build an exclude list just to achieve RC 0. That ploy > >is decades obsolete and achieves nothing that SMPE won't deliver for free. > > > Is there a "Boy Who Cried 'Wolf!'" phenomenon? You do APPLY CHECK and get > RC=8. > You investigate the causes and decide they're all OK. So you APPLY for real > and > tolerate the RC=8 because the CHECK was OK. But this time there's a utility > failure. > > I suppose you need to inspect the reports from APPLY as thoroughly as those > from APPLY CHECK. Whittling down the APPLY CHECK to RC=0 improves the S/N > ratio for APPLY. Hasn't there been a recent enhancement so BYPASS can get > RC=0? > > -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
