RE: RE: 5.1.2.5 vs 6.0 co-existence and 5.2.1.5 removal

> From: GKern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> After spending two days researching and applying what I thought were
the
> PTF's to correct  the problem (SF18900) I had to call IBM today only
to
> have them tell me that their 'fix' to cpytoimpf results in the command
> "now working as designed". Below is a link to the apar support gave
me...

I'm intrigued... why was the lack of truncation causing a problem?  I
still think IBM should have had a switch of some type to allow backward
compatibility.  I will be the first to admit that the whole IMPF
implementation was not handled properly; somebody who has no concept of
backward compatibility was in charge.

But I still wonder why lack of truncation is such an issue?  Can't you
just run the resulting file through a quick trim?

Joe