edu> on behalf of
Edward Gould <edgould1...@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 8:38 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: smp/e question - PTF relinks, but missing CSECTs.
> On May 25, 2018, at 12:39 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson <jesse1.robin...@sce.com>
> wrote:
>
> I
> On May 25, 2018, at 12:39 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson
> wrote:
>
> I'm sympathetic to the argument that new stuff should be investigated, but
> the problem is whether that really happens in practice. We've all met the
> sysprog who meticulously codes parameter defaults as
] On Behalf
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 11:03 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: smp/e question - PTF relinks, but missing CSECTs.
On Fri, 25 May 2018 17:39:03 +, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
>
>As for getting inconsistent results, I suspect that SMP/E resul
On Fri, 25 May 2018 17:39:03 +, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
>
>As for getting inconsistent results, I suspect that SMP/E results can be
>influenced by the particular mix of elements being processed in a given run.
>That is, applying SYSMOD-A and SYSMOD-B in the same step might uncover a
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 12:43 PM Seymour J Metz wrote:
> My song "PUT Process" was motivated by real incidents. JES2 service was
> especially bad; they would issue a PTF with a packaging error and the fix
> would again have a packaging error.
>
​Yeah, I remember "JES2 level
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 12:39 PM Jesse 1 Robinson
wrote:
> I'm sympathetic to the argument that new stuff should be investigated, but
> the problem is whether that really happens in practice. We've all met the
> sysprog who meticulously codes parameter defaults as a kind
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu> on behalf of
Jesse 1 Robinson <jesse1.robin...@sce.com>
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 1:39 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: smp/e question - PTF relinks, but missing CSECTs.
I'm sympathetic to the argument
-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: smp/e question - PTF relinks, but missing CSECTs.
(It's Friday; SPAM is above suspicion.)
On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:41:56 +, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
>I don't see any problem with the BYPASS statement except that it's needlessly
>specific.
(It's Friday; SPAM is above suspicion.)
On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:41:56 +, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
>I don't see any problem with the BYPASS statement except that it's needlessly
>specific. BYPASS(HOLDSYSTEM) without the list of types should not only
>suffice--it does for me--but also hedges