NicC wrote:What do you think the catalog entries looked like before step 1? Yes, G0005V00 (0), G0004V00 (-1), G0003V00 (-2), G0002V00 (-3), G0001V00 (-4)
Step one deletes (-1) - your catalog now looks like this G0005V00 (0), G0003V00 (-1), G0002V00 (-2) and G0001V00 (-3)
Step 2 comes along and deletes (-2) which is G0002V00 so you are left with G0005v00, G0003V00 and G0001V00 which is as expected Aand what you got.
Next time try specifying absolute generations nd not relative generations - even in the same step.
Thank you for your answer, however, i am still confused with that, it seems after the first step, there should be an implicit commit operation.But if we try to delete the (0) GDS (which should be G0005V00) in first step, then the delete (-2) operation in second step should delete G0002V00, because after G0005V00 was deleted in first step, the GDG member should as
But the real result is that G0003V00 was deleted, not G0002V00 was deleted.
the main issue is that the delete(-2) in second step is uncertain, it depends on the delete operation on step 1:
when delete(0) on step 1, delete(-2) on step 2 will delete G0003V00, but
when delete(-1) on step 1, delete(-2) on step 2 will delete G0002V00.