RE: audit source member adds/mods/deletes

> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx / CWilt@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Dan,
>
> Sounds to me like you (and your auditors) would be better served
> by having a
> Change Management System in place.
>
> Seems like you're thinking of spending a significant amount of
> CPU and DASD
> resources tracking this information live.  When I would imagine all you
> really want to be able to do is answer the question who changed what when.
> With logging, automatic archive, and built in ways to compare versions of
> source, most if not CMS software will easily answer those questions.
>
> Aldon and Turnover come to mind.
>
> Charles

Good points to consider, Charles.  CMS, by its definition & purpose, is not
really the issue for us, and would really raise the complexity level for the
simple tracking we are attempting to accomplish.  I don't want to have to
force check in / check out processes -- there aren't that many of us that we
can't keep track of who is working on what.  Not to mention the expense of
CMS.  As far as resources, we are literally "swimming" in available DASD &
CPU, so resources are not an issue (at this time).  At the very least, we
need to see what the resource hit will be.

Thanks,
db