With the incremental delivery, there are many PTFs being published but currently the plan is for just one base install PAX file for V18.
Do your Endevor installers care about this?
To give an idea of the impact, to install incremental 4, I had to install the base PAX version and apply around 50 PTFS to bring the base product and web service up to 18.0.4
Does this matter to anyone or should there be an idea raised to perhaps roll up the PTFs in to an incremental PAX file.
I guess it depends how many PTFs you have applied since V18 INC0. I've just installed V18 INC4 in our test system using CA-CSM and it only received and applied a few more PTFs than we already had.
It wasn't an issue for me personally but I can see how it could be a problem if you haven't installed any PTFs for V18.
I don't do this work but I've sent your question to our guys that do.
Hopefully they will provide some feedback.
As I stated previously I would ask my systems guys and their response is "it would be better if the PAX had all of the PTF's rolled into the incremental."
I saw Eoin's reply about CMS and I agree. I also wish our guys would accept it as a viable tool since we have several CA products but for some reason it has not been accepted so it's not an option.
Hi Stuart, Has the incremental PAX file concept been discussed with CA? Thanks, Phil
Yes it has Phil and there is the old balancing act of effort versus return, so we agreed to post a question to see what people say.
It might not even be relevant now, so we are tapping in to the usual resources :-)
I know this has probably been said before, but CSM makes the whole applying maintenance process a lot easier. It will find all relevant PTFs depending on the FMIDs you've installed, chase all the pre-reqs, and offers time-saving options like FIXCAT to get all associate maintenance for categories for example to apply fixes related to a new z/OS level. You can even set up a schedule to automatically receive maintenance on a regular basis so it's ready for easy review and apply processing.
For me the bigger concern is what happens after, because you still have to run through the configure process (BC1JJB03) and install/retrofit your custom tables, Jcl and skeletons. I think a lot could be done to improve the automation and flow in this area, and I don't thing the answer is either CSM or it's successor MSM.
Either way I think it's important to include in the data collection HOW you are collecting and installing maintenance (ESD or CSM) and then WHAT processes you have to configure and deploy?