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 [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Marchant Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 7:35 AM To: [email protected] 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
