This may be at least in part a mechanical problem. Before I open an SR, I'd
like to show one example. In our GLOBAL, UA74273 looks like this:
SOURCEID ALLAVAIL
ORD00020
PUT1410
SMCCOR
No RSU assigned. However, SIS shows this:
RSU ................... 1503
We routinely receive full HOLDDATA. I just did it again with 'get full.txt'. No
entry for UA74273. Any obvious mistake on our part?
.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
323-715-0595 Mobile
626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW
robin...@sce.com
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of John Eells
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 9:43 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: What to do with PTF dogies?
Since I wound up in a meeting with someone on the CST team, I verified that
everything is supposed to eventually be marked RSU, even PTFs for products that
are not part of CST, based on age. There are windowing factors make the delay
between COR-close and RSU vary, but generally we would expect everything that
was COR-closed by March to have been marked RSU by now.
The simplest way to see if something else is holding up your dogies (other than
a lariat) is to run an APPLY CHECK with a SELECT list and see whether:
(a) they are actually not applicable to the zone for one reason or another; or,
(b) some PRE or IF chain is holding them up (e.g., due to a PE); or,
(c) they are not old enough to be summarily marked RSU by age; or,
(d) we somehow missed marking them RSU when they came of age.
If you think your dogies are in (d), please send me some examples and I'll
forward to the team. Maybe we need to "steer" something in the right direction.
Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
> I have reviewed our current list of unapplied PTFs from LIST NOAPPLY(). The
> real (unexplained) dogies are way fewer than I expected, fewer than I've seen
> in the past. Maybe this has become a non-problem. I do want to make a point
> that some folks may have missed. From the get-go, RSU was not merely a
> relabeling of PTF bundling. PTFs included in an RSU have been tested
> together, providing a new level of confidence over PUT, which was a temporal
> packaging concept, not a functional one. With PUT, the chance of
> incompatibility among PTFs is greater than with RSU.
>
> I agree that a small number of dogies should be taken to IBM for explanation.
>
> .
> .
> J.O.Skip Robinson
> Southern California Edison Company
> Electric Dragon Team Paddler
> SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
> 323-715-0595 Mobile
> 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW
> robin...@sce.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Tom Marchant
> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 7:35 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: (External):Re: What to do with PTF dogies?
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 09:57:31 -0400, Tom Conley wrote:
>
>> I'd ask the question "How come these PTF's aren't in an RSU?"
>> Shouldn't they have gone through CST at some point?
>
> I would think so too, unless they have been SUP'ed.
>
> --
> Tom Marchant
--
John Eells
IBM Poughkeepsie
ee...@us.ibm.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
