Just a quick observation.|
You see a lot of bug fixes fly by on this mailing list, and yes, the install process will eventually get some attention too.
However, considering the facts ..
- the codebase was inherited
- the fork emerged because of already existing issues
- during code cleanup more problems emerged
- multiple people are working on addressing the issues
.. I would just make the (IMHO entirely logical) observation that the original code thus stands a good chance of harbouring significantly more problems, they just haven't been discovered yet. Let's call it the iceberg effect.
This leads to an interesting choice, either:
- trust your accounts and their integrity to a team that evidently works hard to make it work as it should, with pretty defined goals and with evidence that what they have set themselves out to do is indeed happening (and you have the option of going the 1.1 or 1.2 route - I'll go 1.2 as I start afresh anyway) or
- use the original code (i.e. SL) and keep wondering what other problems you'll never hear about. Personally, that's not quite the sort of beta test I'd like to be exposed to.
If you have an existing SL system you thus have to assess the risk of unknown exposures vs the risk of upgrading. The former is a ticking timebomb, with the latter you have at least some help as far as I can see.
So, to quote Clint Easton: "do you feel lucky?".
/// P ///