In <cajtoo59nb1ma+fdizgegnst41kzpy_ska0kwoe_8a8ax0+z...@mail.gmail.com>, on 12/23/2015 at 04:52 PM, Mike Schwab <[email protected]> said:
>On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) ><[email protected]> wrote: >> In >> <29b16432403d6c45a9bee5f0302d191779b9f...@vss-exchmb1.sfg.corp.LOCAL>, >> on 12/23/2015 >> at 05:27 PM, "Pommier, Rex" <[email protected]> said: >> >>>Maybe in way of compromise, SMP/E should set a RC=6 instead of 8 >>>where maintenance is stopped due to an error hold. :-) >> >> How does an error hold differ from a system hold? >> >Where a PTF has an ERROR worse than the problem it fixes and IBM >recommends NOT installing. Let me rephrase that: How is refusing to apply a PTF with an error hold worse than refusing to apply a PTF with a system hold? The ones to worry about are the ones that *do* go on. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html> We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
