[log in to unmask] writes:
> Q: Should Patch/iX differntiate between "enhancement" patches and
> "bug fix" patches?

I'd like there to be some sort of "enhancement" indication in the list of
qualified patches.

It's usually fairly easy to tell if a patch is an enhancement from the one-line
description, but not always.  Thus, some sort of explicit "enhancement" flag
is probably a good idea.

> Q: Should the default behavior be to not install "enhancemnt"
> patches?

No.  I think the default should be to automatically qualify enhancements.

After all, if I have manually downloaded patches from the HP ESC, then I'm
obviously planning to install these.  Or if the HPRC sends me something on
tape, then I'm obviously planning to install all of that.

In the case of a major bundle like Express3, I wait until I'm ready to install
the whole thing.  I don't think I've ever had a patch bundle where I didn't
want to install everything at once.

> Q: How should the funtionality be present to the enduser to be
> maximally clear and maximally "safe"?

With the present functionality, I examine every patch in the qualification
list so I can make sure that the "qualified" or "not qualified" status is
appropriate for my system.  I consider myself to be an informed Patch/iX
user, and I've learned how to live with the present functionality.

I agree that enhancement patches must be highlighted in some manner,
because some enhancements might require significant post-install work (Allbase
and SQLMIGrate come to mind).  Installing one of these will break your
production applications if you are unprepared.

Something that might address the HP3000-L complaints about things not being
installed because they don't qualify would be the creation of a new
qualification failure report that must be viewed and OK-ed before the user is
allowed to create a stage or tape.  This new report would list every failure
and the detailed reason for each failure down to the failing file name.  The
user would only have to scroll, and not traverse each patch separately like
you have to do now to examine all failures.  The present interface is a real
pain if you have many patches (i.e. an Express release).

Perhaps a similar must-be-OKed report might also be a good idea for all
enhancements that do qualify.
--
Mark Bixby                      E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Coast Community College Dist.   Web: http://www.cccd.edu/~markb/
District Information Services   1370 Adams Ave, Costa Mesa, CA, USA 92626-5429
Technical Support               +1 714 438-4647
"You can tune a file system, but you can't tune a fish." - tunefs(1M)