Thanks for writing this up Joel!
Is it fair to say that SMP/E is not strictly error-fix anymore, since there are
now INCremental releases from CA (for example), which allow for the
introduction of product feature(s)?
If it's RSU1903 or PUT1903, sure, that's fixes, but with the growth of
Continuous Delivery, product development itself is being sped up due to
shortened release cycles (think MQ now does CD).
On the other end, GitLab (a provider of Git) is now offering package management.
Are the 2 products/technologies converging?
Hypothetically, if they are, is Git better than SMP/E, or vice versa?
That is... is tomorrow's SMP/E going to be "Not Your Father's SMP/E", having
stood the test of time, and possibly better at version control / package mgmt
than Git?
Again, I just want to hear folks' thoughts on this topic..
– Vignesh
Mainframe Infrastructure
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> On Behalf Of
Joel C. Ewing
Sent: 20 May 2019 16:10
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Comparing SMP/E to Git
My understanding of Git is fairly superficial, having only read about it and
not actually used it, but it would appear that the orientation of git is
primarily one of files/modules, tracking collections of those and the assigning
of versioning levels for the entire collection of files. Distribution of a
product involves selecting a version level from one of a linear progression of
versions and supplying all pieces of the product corresponding to that version
level.
SMP/E on the other hand only deals with product versions at major version
levels in the form of supplying and new product FMID that supercedes the FMIDs
for earlier versions of the product. SMP/E has as its primary focus fixes
(PTFs) that resolve problems ( APARs) for specific FMID levels of a product.
Installing a singe PTF could change just a single file/module of a product, or
it could change many, even all, files in the product. SMP/E manages the
handling of interdependencies among PTFs, APARs, and FMIDs. You can choose to
distribute a product at a specific maintenance level as defined by the set of
libraries known to SMP/E and the associated SMP/E databases that define what
FMIDs and combination of PTFs are installed.
The SMP/E approach appears much more powerful in that it can support the Git
approach as a subset by permitting "level set" PTFs which change so much of a
product as to be effectively a new sub-version level that is required for all
future updates. Some z/OS products, particularly some that are Unix-based,
follow that approach and tend to have massive-sized PTFs that resolve many
APARs. The normal PTF approach where one PTF resolves one APAR or a
relatively small number of APARs and affects a relatively small number of files
has the advantage that it allows more precise control over how much you choose
to perturb a functioning system just to resolve a specific critical issue that
is causing problems at your installation. That approach is possible even with
very complex applications in z/OS because the large load modules of such
applications are typically comprised of many linked modules and SMP/E can
perform updates at the level of individual modules. Although it is typical to
install many PTFs at a time during a regular planned maintenance, the PTF
approach allows a lot of flexibility if specific fixes are known to create
unresolved problems. The approach of tracking known problems in the form of
documented Error Holds against a PTF can even allow an informed choice of
whether it makes sense to install a PTF that fixes a serious problem even
though it may introduce some other unresolved problem that might not be an
exposure at your installation.
Joel C. Ewing
On 5/20/19 8:28 AM, Sankaranarayanan, Vignesh wrote:
> ... in what ways are they similar, and what ways are they different?
> Is the world better off with SMP/E-like structure for code, or is z/OS etc.
> better off with Git-like structure?
>
> - Vignesh
> Mainframe Infrastructure
>
> ...
--
Joel C. Ewing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
MARKSANDSPENCER.COM
________________________________
Unless otherwise stated above:
Marks and Spencer plc
Registered Office:
Waterside House
35 North Wharf Road
London
W2 1NW
Registered No. 214436 in England and Wales.
Telephone (020) 7935 4422
Facsimile (020) 7487 2670
www.marksandspencer.com
Please note that electronic mail may be monitored.
This e-mail is confidential. If you received it by mistake, please let us know
and then delete it from your system; you should not copy, disclose, or
distribute its contents to anyone nor act in reliance on this e-mail, as this
is prohibited and may be unlawful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
