My preference is the Hard Cut. As with any other major sw transition, the SF release will be a difficult child in the near-term. I'd rather that the newer release receive as many resources as possible while it matures.
I suggest releasing a new version of the old client with all of the unofficial patches so it's up to speed and then freezing it in time. m2 >We are about to make the SF release of the client the official release for >OSRS, and I would like some feedback on our approach. There are basically >two ways we can do this: > >1. Hard cut: make SF official and only "innovate" on that version. This >would mean that any new functionality would only be developed by us ion >that code base >2. Soft transition: make SF the default for new installs, but innovate on >both for a period of time (3 months?) - new functionality would be >developed on both in concert (obviously more work). After three months, we >would cut to innovating on SF only >3. Perpetual purgatory: innovate on both for the measurable future > >Would like your comments on all this. We do not mind supporting both, >however it just means we will in general innovate less from a feature >perspective as we will have an increased maintenance overhead. We feel the >SF client is far superior, however we appreciate the pain in migrating >(however, keep in mind that once migrated to the SF version, upgrades are >*much* easier). Also, the old clients will always (for the forseeable >future) work, the question is whether any innovations we develop are baked >in there, and for how long... > >Discuss! > >sA > >Scott Allan >Director OpenSRS >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
