Re: Woes on ANZOBJCVN...

Rob,

I agree, it shouldn't be a big deal to pass this at all.
Creation data came out in V5R1, so there must have been some future
thoughts about this was going to have to be done in the future, otherwise
they would have allowed when removing observability to remove observability
and creation data.

Pete

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of rob@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 2:25 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Woes on ANZOBJCVN...

Keep in mind, that IBM was talking about observability in V6R1 beforehand. What difference does several months make instead of a couple of years? The theory is that it should not have been such a big deal to at least pass ANZOBJCVN. No, the vendors just decided to sit on their hands and not do anything. As much as one could argue that they were doing regression testing and whatnot, I'm willing to wager that view, if any, did any simple recompiles of the recompiled stuff on V5R4 within a month or three of the posting of the need to run ANZOBJCVN. Let alone started any regression testing. If I had any faith that the vendors would have done anything then I would have harped on IBM more to announce earlier.

I wonder if the people who got invited to go to Rochester early, (pre beta), had any more to run to report back to IBM than "Yep, UPDDTA works on V6R1. Too bad all my applications croak immediately with 'MCH42B5 - Program or module not convertible.'"

Rob Berendt