On 23 Dec 2015 05:50:44 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >> Is a return code of 4 more appropriate for PTFs not applied because of >> error hold? > >This is an interesting idea, which I'm curious to hear opinions on. If >doing a mass APPLY (not using the SELECT operand), and PTFs are stopped >because of a PE (ERROR HOLD), either directly or in a requisite chain >that is stuck because of a PE, what RC should be used to identify this >condition? RC=8? 4? 0? Other ideas?
I believe that return code 4 is supposed to mean warning, 8 significant error, 12 - severe error didn't work, 12 an even more severe error and 16 critical error. Thus PTFs not being applied because of error holds should not raise a significant error flag. Looking at the other HOLD types, I can see where a return code of 8 would be appropriate for many of them. I assume the CAUSER report which came after when I was doing SMP work will or can group the holds by type for ease of review. Clark Morris > >Kurt Quackenbush -- IBM, SMP/E Development > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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
