|
midrange-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > 7. Re: Immediate PTF -- What's the point? (rob) > >While a ptf may be applied immediately often there will be some action >required. Sometimes the action is drastic enough that you might as well >IPL. Sample actions may include: <snip> When there's actually an "action" to perform, I have no problem. But in this specific case, the _only_ action needed was to IPL. I just can't see where this is in any significant way different from a PTF that's applied as delayed but before the IPL. I'd have preferred this PTF to be designated as 'Delayed' right at the start. >Technically, it makes IBM look good if they can reduce the number of PTF's >that require an IPL to apply. I'm feeling as if this is _THE_ answer. When I remember the relief back at around R1.2 and R2.1 when cumes and pre-reqs started to come together (back before "V"ersion had much meaning), I always feel nervous when things seem to be slipping backwards. Tom Liotta -- -- Tom Liotta The PowerTech Group, Inc. 19426 68th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Phone 253-872-7788 x313 Fax 253-872-7904 http://www.powertechgroup.com __________________________________________________________________ Try AOL and get 1045 hours FREE for 45 days! http://free.aol.com/tryaolfree/index.adp?375380 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 for FREE! Download Now! http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
