On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Clark Morris <[email protected]> wrote: > On 23 Dec 2015 05:50:44 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: > >>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
I agree with list of the normal return codes. But here, we need to decide if we need to do additional work to install a PTF or wait for it to be fixed. A return code of 4 might not be investigated, so that would be my choice for something that should not be installed (as of the last retrieve). A return code of 8 should be investigated, so a PTF that is OK to install (as of the last retrieve) but needs work other than installing should have this return code. A return code of 0 is good for any PTF that can be installed (as of the last retrieve) and does not need any additional work. -- Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
