Re: Woes on ANZOBJCVN...

["Mark S. Waterbury" <mark.s.waterbury@xxxxxxx>]

This was all well documented in the V5R1 Memo To Users.

> Pete Massiello wrote:
> 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
>