Re: PTF questions

Simon,

At 10/6/01 03:38 PM +1000, you wrote:
>I guess if the developer continually refuses to merge this fix with the base
>OS then the erroneous statement
>
>         "  Since the majority of customers use the ILE environment,
>           this PTF would cause problems for them."
>
>will eventually become true -- but it's certainly taking a bloody long time.

  Even if the statement eventually DOES come true, the basis of the
decision is still wrong.  Even when I am developing in 100% ILE, I do not
want to see the activation group info as the default.  I rarely need that
info.  I/O info is MUCH more useful.

  I really wish that IBM would ask us before making such decisions and "put
it back" when there's a "whoops" made.

  IBM's answer "What's the big deal - you can just apply a PTF!" is
unacceptable.  Why?

1)  It deliberately inconveniences the customer.

2)  The premise that it's "easy" to just apply a PTF is false.  I have been
in several shops that have procedures that must be followed to request PTF,
downtime that must be scheduled (even if it does not require a dedicated
system, since they won't apply any PTF to an active production box),
reasons to justify the PTF, polls of other users to see if they really want
the change, etc.  This usually results in apathy, since to them it's more
trouble than it's worth.

  -mark