RE: Immediate PTF -- What's the point?

[qsrvbas@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Tom Liotta)]

midrange-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>   7. Re: Immediate PTF -- What's the point? (rob)
>
>While a ptf may be applied immediately often there will be some action 
>required.  Sometimes the action is drastic enough that you might as well 
>IPL.  Sample actions may include:
<snip>

When there's actually an "action" to perform, I have no problem. But in this 
specific case, the _only_ action needed was to IPL. I just can't see where this 
is in any significant way different from a PTF that's applied as delayed but 
before the IPL. I'd have preferred this PTF to be designated as 'Delayed' right 
at the start.


>Technically, it makes IBM look good if they can reduce the number of PTF's 
>that require an IPL to apply.

I'm feeling as if this is _THE_ answer.

When I remember the relief back at around R1.2 and R2.1 when cumes and pre-reqs 
started to come together (back before "V"ersion had much meaning), I always 
feel nervous when things seem to be slipping backwards.


Tom Liotta

-- 
-- 
Tom Liotta
The PowerTech Group, Inc.
19426 68th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Phone  253-872-7788 x313
Fax    253-872-7904
http://www.powertechgroup.com


__________________________________________________________________
Try AOL and get 1045 hours FREE for 45 days!
http://free.aol.com/tryaolfree/index.adp?375380

Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 for FREE! Download Now!
http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455