On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 15:50:55 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
>
>BTW, how do people feel about components that have the same FMID in
>consecutive releases? On balance I believe that IBM is doing the right
>thing there, but there are minuses.
>
Which are they doing? If it's the same thing it should be the same.
I once submitted a PMR against SuperC in ISPF (which we have) which
went to APAR. I was told that the fix would necessarily be slow appearing:
it would be first fixed in SuperC in HLASM TK (which we don't have), and
then rolled in to SuperC in ISPF. Likewise, the M&C for the two variants
are separate but not equal, if only to supply different message prefixes
while they get out of sync with each other.
So I ranted here to the effect:
Why not supply a single SuperC FMID as a component of both products,
with a single manual, and a single set of messages and simplify the
maintenance and improve the customer experience and ... ?
An IBM employee patiently explained that would be contrary to policy
(politics?) I can suspect there's a pricing concern.
-- gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
