On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:54:52 +0000, Jakubek, Jan <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? > >Kurt Quackenbush -- IBM, SMP/E Development >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >My personal preference: > >PTF not applied RC=8 (unchanged) > >HOLDSYSTEM: >RC=4 for the following IDs: MULTSYS, IOGEN, FULLGEN, EXRF, EXIT, EC, DEP, >DDDEF, DB2BIND, ACTION, DOWNLD, DELETE.
I'm sure we'll get lots of disagreement. My preference, if anything were to change, is just the opposite. RC=8 for system holds that have not been bypassed. My reasoning is that the sysprog should review the system holds and bypass them. Otherwise, important maintenance may never be applied. RC=4 if they have been bypassed. I'm not sure how I'd like to see the return code set if system holds were bypassed selectively. RC=4 for PTFs that didn't apply because of an unresolved error hold, at least on a mass apply. RC=8 probably makes more sense for an APPLY SELECT if a selected PTF didn't apply because of an error hold. -- Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
