> -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Skip Robinson > Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 3:00 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: PTF error clarification > > 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.
Our quality control process required an audit for any project that was about to be released for production. That included scheduled system updates. The audit personnel were not mainframe savvy, not even software savvy. What they did excel at was ensuring that our procedures were approved before we built the project and that we actually followed them. This was usually achieved by retaining the output from the jobs that built and tested the project. An RC of 0 and an empty causer report made the audit go much smoother. (It's not easy explaining to a welding inspector why a PTF error would not be a real problem.) You may be right about no technical gain but clean builds are a political lifesaver. I doubt my organization was unique in this regard. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
