Should APARs be Accepted?
Ben Alford
I typically accept PTF's before applying new maintenance.
However, I now have one APAR fix applied to TCP/IP and can't remember if
there were good reasons not to accept apars.
Your thoughts?
TIA
Ben Alford (865) 974-1600 Enterprise Systems Programming
University of Tennessee, Knoxville INTERNET: ben-a...@utk.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to list...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Eric Bielefeld
Eric Bielefeld
Sr. MVS Systems Programmer
P&H Mining Equipment
Milwaukee, WI
414-671-7849
eb...@hii.com
>>> PA7...@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU 04/04/01 03:29PM >>>
Warriner, Lee , OTSD, IT
the APAR will/should be SUPed by a PTF which can be APPLIED and ACCEPTED.
Lee Warriner
MVS and JES Support
860-547-2004
cwar...@thehartford.com
Mary Anne Lowery
which can be ACCEPTed.
Mary Anne Lowery
Verizon
"Ben Alford" <PA7...@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU>@BAMA.UA.EDU> on 04/04/2001 04:29:08 PM
Please respond to "IBM Mainframe Discussion List" <IBM-...@BAMA.UA.EDU>
Sent by: "IBM Mainframe Discussion List" <IBM-...@BAMA.UA.EDU>
To: IBM-...@BAMA.UA.EDU
cc:
Subject: Should APARs be Accepted?
Metz, Seymour
required for some perverse reason.
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Alford [SMTP:PA7...@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 4:29 PM
>
> Should IBM APAR's be accepted?
>
> I typically accept PTF's before applying new maintenance.
> However, I now have one APAR fix applied to TCP/IP and can't remember if
> there were good reasons not to accept apars.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Skip Robinson
an APAR. Once in a while an early version of an APAR, say AW12345,
eventually evolves into GW12345, which becomes PTF UW12345. The final
version may be so different from the original that it no longer hits the
same set of elements. I had one like this in the past few months. The
*only* correct way to install such a PTF is first to RESTORE the APAR to
return all effected elements back to their original state. Otherwise the
resultant mess is at best unmaintainable and maybe even unrunnable.
Once you have ACCEPTed a sysmod, you cannot RESTORE it. There's no reason
to put yourself at risk for such a predicament. Leave APARs out of ACCEPT
streams.
Ben Alford
<PA7280@UTKVM To: IBM-...@BAMA.UA.EDU
1.UTK.EDU> cc:
Sent by: IBM Subject: Should APARs be Accepted?
Mainframe
Discussion
List
<IBM-MAIN@BAM
A.UA.EDU>
04/04/2001
01:29 PM
Please
respond to
IBM Mainframe
Discussion
List
Skip Robinson
we had a number of mods to JES2 control blocks--not the way to do it in
these enlightened times, but that's how it was then. When we installed
SDSF, he had to assemble with the same modified control blocks to do his
work. So far so good. However, SDSF ACCEPT would fail unless I first
ACCEPTed the relevant JES2 usermods. So I did. Reluctantly. Perversely.
"Metz,
Seymour" To: IBM-...@BAMA.UA.EDU
<sm...@NSF.GO cc:
V> Subject: Re: Should APARs be Accepted?
Sent by: IBM
Mainframe
Discussion
List
<IBM-MAIN@BAM
A.UA.EDU>
04/04/2001
02:00 PM
Please
respond to
IBM Mainframe
Discussion
List
IMHO you should never do an ACCEPT for an APAR or USERMOD unless it is
required for some perverse reason.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Selles, Garry J
they are from IBM but some OEM vendors, especially C/A put out a great
percentage of their maintenance in ++APAR format and not ++PTF. These I do
accept. As for USERMODS, I found it unwise to ever accept these.
Garry...
Should IBM APAR's be accepted?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shirey, Greg
all APARs before you do anything else. So I did. Then when I tried to
apply the new ones, many would not apply. When I called CA to ask for
assistance, I was told "you should never accept APARs." When I pointed out
that their instructions explicitly stated that I should, she said that I
shouldn't have done it anyway.
Fortunately, I had a backup of the CSI and all the libraries, but I do not
accept CA APARs any more.
Greg Shirey
City of Fort Worth
-----Original Message-----
From: Selles, Garry J [mailto:garry.j...@LMCO.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 4:20 PM
I agree with most responders about not accepting APARS, with the caveat that
they are from IBM but some OEM vendors, especially C/A put out a great
percentage of their maintenance in ++APAR format and not ++PTF. These I do
accept. As for USERMODS, I found it unwise to ever accept these.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Metz, Seymour
an SDSF user mod.
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Skip Robinson [SMTP:JO.Skip....@SCE.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 5:19 PM
>
> I can cite one perverse reason for ACCEPTing a usermod. In a previous
> life,
> we had a number of mods to JES2 control blocks--not the way to do it in
> these enlightened times, but that's how it was then. When we installed
> SDSF, he had to assemble with the same modified control blocks to do his
> work. So far so good. However, SDSF ACCEPT would fail unless I first
> ACCEPTed the relevant JES2 usermods. So I did. Reluctantly. Perversely.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ginnane, Shane
Is it possible that I've mentioned my disdain of CA's SMP endeavours - or
lack there-of ???.
This shipping of "normal" fixes as APARs is ridiculous. I think I've even
seen usermods shipped and recommended for ACCEPT.
Like I'm going to take their advice on things like that.
ACCEPT GEXT(NOUSERMODS,NOAPARS)
NO exceptions
-----Original Message-----
From: Shirey, Greg [mailto:Shi...@CI.FORT-WORTH.TX.US]
I can recall getting some maintenance from CA with the instructions, accept
all APARs before you do anything else. So I did. Then when I tried to
apply the new ones, many would not apply. When I called CA to ask for
assistance, I was told "you should never accept APARs." When I pointed out
that their instructions explicitly stated that I should, she said that I
shouldn't have done it anyway.
Fortunately, I had a backup of the CSI and all the libraries, but I do not
accept CA APARs any more.
-----Original Message-----
From: Selles, Garry J [mailto:garry.j...@LMCO.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 4:20 PM
I agree with most responders about not accepting APARS, with the caveat that
they are from IBM but some OEM vendors, especially C/A put out a great
percentage of their maintenance in ++APAR format and not ++PTF. These I do
accept. As for USERMODS, I found it unwise to ever accept these.
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager of QR.
This message has been swept by MIMESweeper for the presence of computer
viruses. No warranty is given that this message upon its receipt is
virus free and no liability is accepted by the sender in this respect.
This email is a message only; does not constitute advice and should not
be relied upon as such.
**********************************************************************
Rick Fochtman
Should IBM APAR's be accepted?
I typically accept PTF's before applying new maintenance.However, I now have
one APAR fix applied to TCP/IP and can't remember if there were good reasons
not to accept apars.
Your thoughts?
-----------------<unsnip>--------------
APARs and USERMODs are never accepted in my OS/390. Can't speak for other
products, since most vendors don't seem to understand SMP/E yet.
Chase, John
> Should IBM APAR's be accepted?
>
> I typically accept PTF's before applying new maintenance.
> However, I now have one APAR fix applied to TCP/IP and can't remember if
> there were good reasons not to accept apars.
We "never" SMPE ACCEPT Apars or Usermods; only PTFs and other
"permanent-type" fixes/functions.
-jc-
Kurt Quackenbush
> ...Once in a while an early version of an APAR, say AW12345,
> eventually evolves into GW12345, which becomes PTF UW12345. The final
> version may be so different from the original that it no longer hits the
> same set of elements.
Gee, I'd suggest such a PTF is in error... I suspect there are some change teams
that might disagree, but if a PTF supersedes an APAR, then that PTF must at least
contain each and every element contained in the APAR. Even if an element changed
by the APAR no longer requires a change, the original instance of that element must
be contained in the PTF.
SMP/E even has an open APAR to address this kind of verification.
Kurt Quackenbush, IBM SMP/E Development
Skip Robinson
I had in mind: PQ44644. The original APAR fix we installed hit these mods:
EZBCTFME EZBIPDGW EZBIPOUT EZBIPRHD EZBIPRTE . The final PTF, UQ50082 ,
hits only EZBIPDGW . Hence I had to RESTORE AQ44644 before APPLYing the
PTF.
This is an uncommon situation, and RESTORE works very well--thank you SMPE!
It nevertheless represents a strong case for *never* ACCEPTing an APAR fix.
Kurt
Quackenbush To: IBM-...@BAMA.UA.EDU
<ku...@US.IBM cc:
.COM> Subject: Re: Should APARs be Accepted?
Sent by: IBM
Mainframe
Discussion
List
<IBM-MAIN@BAM
A.UA.EDU>
04/05/2001
07:19 AM
Please
respond to
IBM Mainframe
Discussion
List
Randy Hudson
> We "never" SMPE ACCEPT Apars or Usermods; only PTFs and other
> "permanent-type" fixes/functions.
I chuckled a bit at the irony here. PTF used to be an abbreviation for
"program temporary fix."
--
Randy Hudson <i...@panix.com>
Chase, John
> John Chase wrote:
>
> > We "never" SMPE ACCEPT Apars or Usermods; only PTFs and other
> > "permanent-type" fixes/functions.
>
> I chuckled a bit at the irony here. PTF used to be an abbreviation for
> "program temporary fix."
Still is. ;-)
-jc-
Metz, Seymour
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chase, John [SMTP:jch...@USSCO.COM]
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 10:06 AM
>
> On Thursday, April 05, 2001 11:40 PM, Randy Hudson wrote:
> > John Chase wrote:
> >
> > > We "never" SMPE ACCEPT Apars or Usermods; only PTFs and other
> > > "permanent-type" fixes/functions.
> >
> > I chuckled a bit at the irony here. PTF used to be an abbreviation for
> > "program temporary fix."
>
> Still is. ;-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chase, John
> I thought that it was now Product Temporary Fix.
Maybe for "small" products.... The irony was (is) that a "temporary" fix is
intended as a "permanent" solution.
-jc-
Joseph J Katnic
jch...@USSCO.COM (Chase, John) wrote:
> On Friday, April 06, 2001 9:54 AM, Metz, Seymour wrote:
> > I thought that it was now Product Temporary Fix.
>
> Maybe for "small" products.... The irony was (is) that a "temporary" fix is
> intended as a "permanent" solution.
>
YUP, "permanent" until the next release!
Where of course it is incorporated into the base code or a better
solution is created.
--
Joe Katnic
Don Russell
....
Other than that I usually wait for the PTF/PUT and often even stay one
behind that.
The theory being that if a "fix" introduces some new problem, it is most
often adressed in the NEXT PTF/PUT.
By staying at "N-1", I usually avoid the "bleeding edge"... :-)
Don Russell
"Ben Alford" <PA7...@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU> wrote in message
news:010404.16310...@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU...
Don Russell
regarding ACCEPTing APARS...
I was thinnking in terms of the "english grammar meaning" of "accept" rather
than as the programatic meaning here....
Context is SO important. ;-)
Don Russell
"Ben Alford" <PA7...@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU> wrote in message
news:010404.16310...@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU...
Frank Brüchmann
Frank.
"Chase, John" <jch...@USSCO.COM> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1E8B39891888D311825000508B070E8F08723BDD@GRUS...