Talk:FreeBSD Release Branches - Revision history

Joe: Sorry for the repeat edits... something is broken.

2006-01-04T17:00:53Z

Sorry for the repeat edits... something is broken.

Joe: Ideas for future changes

2006-01-04T16:58:44Z

Ideas for future changes

Joe: Ideas for future changes

2006-01-04T16:58:14Z

Ideas for future changes

Joe: Ideas for future changes

2006-01-04T16:57:39Z

Ideas for future changes

Joe: Ideas for future changes

2006-01-04T16:56:42Z

Ideas for future changes

New page

I ran across an interesting analogy on Questions today that may work it's way into this article:
Jerry McAllister wrote:
Yah, stable is better than alpha or the bleeding edge 'current'
development image, but still in need of significant care.

Think of how they report someone's health condition after a trauma.
Stable seems to mean they can finally move the patient from the
operating room to a bed with monitors and walk down and get lunch.
But, the patient is still a long way from being able to drive home.

Just so, a FreeBSD version spends a long time in stable before
making it to RELEASE.

I'm not sure I like refering to FBSD as a trauma patient... but the analogy certainly makes the "STABLE IS NOT THE MOST STABLE RELEASE" memorable.

I may also want to explicitly mention that stable as a development release is in contrast to Debian, which is likely one of the mental stumbling blocks for many people with this concept.

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:58, 4 January 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~I ran across an interesting analogy on Questions today that may work its way into this article:~~
−	~~Jerry McAllister wrote:~~
−	~~Yah, stable is better than alpha or the bleeding edge current~~
−	~~development image, but still in need of significant care.~~
−
−	~~Think of how they report someone's health condition after a trauma.~~
−	~~Stable seems to mean they can finally move the patient from the~~
−	~~operating room to a bed with monitors and walk down and get lunch.~~
−	~~But, the patient is still a long way from being able to drive home.~~
−
−	~~Just so, a FreeBSD version spends a long time in stable before~~
−	~~making it to RELEASE.~~
−
−	~~I'm not sure I like refering to FBSD as a trauma patient... but the analogy certainly makes the "STABLE IS NOT THE MOST STABLE RELEASE" memorable.~~
−
−	~~I may also want to explicitly mention that stable as a development release is in contrast to Debian, which is likely one of the mental stumbling blocks for many people with this concept.~~
	--[[User:Joe\|Joe]] 11:58, 4 Jan 2006 (EST)		--[[User:Joe\|Joe]] 11:58, 4 Jan 2006 (EST)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-I ran across an interesting analogy on Questions today that may work it's way into this article:
+I ran across an interesting analogy on Questions today that may work its way into this article:
 Jerry McAllister wrote:
-  Yah, stable is better than alpha or the bleeding edge 'current'
+  Yah, stable is better than alpha or the bleeding edge current
   development image, but still in need of significant care.
@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 I may also want to explicitly mention that stable as a development release is in contrast to Debian, which is likely one of the mental stumbling blocks for many people with this concept.
---[[User:Joe|Joe]] 11:57, 4 Jan 2006 (EST)
+--[[User:Joe|Joe]] 11:58, 4 Jan 2006 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:57, 4 January 2006
Line 15:		Line 15:

	I may also want to explicitly mention that stable as a development release is in contrast to Debian, which is likely one of the mental stumbling blocks for many people with this concept.		I may also want to explicitly mention that stable as a development release is in contrast to Debian, which is likely one of the mental stumbling blocks for many people with this concept.
		+	--[[User:Joe\|Joe]] 11:57, 4 Jan 2006 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:00, 4 January 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	--[[User:Joe\|Joe]] 11:58, 4 Jan 2006 (EST)	+	I ran across an interesting analogy on Questions today that may work its way into this article:
		+	Jerry McAllister wrote:
		+	Yah, stable is better than alpha or the bleeding edge current
		+	development image, but still in need of significant care.
		+
		+	Think of how they report someone's health condition after a trauma.
		+	Stable seems to mean they can finally move the patient from the
		+	operating room to a bed with monitors and walk down and get lunch.
		+	But, the patient is still a long way from being able to drive home.
		+
		+	Just so, a FreeBSD version spends a long time in stable before
		+	making it to RELEASE.
		+
		+	I'm not sure I like refering to FBSD as a trauma patient... but the analogy certainly makes the "STABLE IS NOT THE MOST STABLE RELEASE" memorable.
		+
		+	I may also want to explicitly mention that stable as a development release is in contrast to Debian, which is likely one of the mental stumbling blocks for many people with this concept.
		+	--[[User:Joe\|Joe]] 12:00, 4 Jan 2006 (EST)