On 23 Dec 2015 15:52:13 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >In ><cajtoo59nb1ma+fdizgegnst41kzpy_ska0kwoe_8a8ax0+z...@mail.gmail.com>, >on 12/23/2015 > at 04:52 PM, Mike Schwab <mike.a.sch...@gmail.com> said: > >>On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) >><shmuel+ibm-m...@patriot.net> wrote: >>> In >>> <29b16432403d6c45a9bee5f0302d191779b9f...@vss-exchmb1.sfg.corp.LOCAL>, >>> on 12/23/2015 >>> at 05:27 PM, "Pommier, Rex" <rpomm...@sfgmembers.com> 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. > Refusing to apply a PTF with an error hold is just normal business that needs little programmer action. PTFs with DOC HOLDs and other HOLDs that require programmer action followed by a bypass are of a different nature. The DOC HOLD I assume requires the programmer to read the DOC.
Clark Morris ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
