To make everybody happy, make this a user controlled option, you decide what causes RC=xx.
--- [email protected] wrote: From: "Richards, Robert B." <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: PTF error clarification Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:44:24 -0500 Kurt, As long as it is non-zero, I do not particularly care except for the legacy understanding of what the various codes normally mean. I do tend to recognize a RC=8 as something more critical to investigate, but as a practical matter, I review anything non-zero. Bob -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kurt Quackenbush Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 8:51 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: PTF error clarification > 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? 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 _____________________________________________________________ Netscape. Just the Net You Need. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
