-
You always believe that your every word is golden, and go ballistic when people
only quote the part that they are commenting on.
1. I'm probably going to regret responding.
2. I do not think my words are golden; I'm simply trying to clarify, since I
did
>You always believe that your every word is golden, and go ballistic when
>people only quote the part that they are commenting on.
1. I'm probably going to regret responding.
2. I do not think my words are golden; I'm simply trying to clarify, since I
did not articulate my position well enough t
In
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 04/14/2008
at 10:19 PM, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>My point was: why do people do things in a non-standard (unsupported)
>way. Which you snipped out.
ROTF,LMAO! You always believe that your every word is golden, and go
ballistic when people only quote the
>Then you missed the point. The point is that there is nothing non-standard or
>unsupported in naming the data sets I was referring to:
My point had nothing to do with that, except for redundant qualifiers.
My point was why were production jobs/users pointing to SYS1 datasets directly?
I elabou
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:19:01 +, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
.
>
>My point was: why do people do things in a non-standard (unsupported) way.
Which you snipped out.
>
Then you missed the point. The point is that there is nothing non-standard
or unsupported in naming the data sets
>That was when I said (basically) "what do standards have to do with it?".
I have lost track of your point.
In (almost) every shop I've worked in, we've set it up so production does not
point (directly) to system libraries.
They're either in LINK/LPA, catalogued procedures or buried in productio
>Not your comment, Eh? Who's post is this?? >Perhaps you were too busy
>driving to remember. :-)
I was responding to the original PITA comment.
The following comment was not mine -- I've lost track of whose it was:
Hard to change that stuff in a production environment... well, maybe not
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:36:07 -0500, Mark Zelden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:58:27 +, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Hard to change that stuff in a production environment... well, maybe not
>>hard, just a PITA when there are batch processes and people with
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:58:27 +, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hard to change that stuff in a production environment... well, maybe not
>hard, just a PITA when there are batch processes and people with their own
>clists etc.
>>>
>>>In production, standards should be enforced, so it
>>>Hard to change that stuff in a production environment... well, maybe not
hard, just a PITA when there are batch processes and people with their own
clists etc.
>>
>>In production, standards should be enforced, so it won't become a PITA.
>
>(changed the subject since this has nothing to do with
I also like making SYS1. qualifiers for all of the IBM target datasets. When I
was still at P&H Mining, I would consolidate all of the ISPF libraries by type.
Instead of having a bunch of ISPPLIBs, SLIBs, TLIBs, etc., I changed the
DDDefs to all point to SYS1.ISPPLIB, SYS1.ISPSLIB, SYS1.ISPTLI
I happen to like having SYS1.** for (all) IBM targets.
Always had a RACF rule for it - and a group SYS1 for that matter.
Nowadays have similar for the OMVS started tasks.
And yes, I go change all the ServerPac dsnames that "need" it - not
helped by the mish-mash of names shipped. I'm sure I've bea
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 02:51:34 +, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I often see SYS1.ISF.SISF* , SYS1.ISP.SISP*, SYS1.GIM.SGIM* etc. even
though the MLQ is redundant.
>
>I agree with the redundancy argument; what's wrong with each product having
the same library name(s) at every site?
>
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
