| ▲ | simonw 9 hours ago | |
That's only important if the plan is to stay feature-compatible with the original going forward. For this case, where it's used as an internal filtering engine, I expect the goal is fixing bugs that show up and occasionally adding a feature that's needed by this organization. | ||
| ▲ | kace91 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |
>expect the goal is fixing bugs that show up and occasionally adding a feature that's needed by this organization. Even if we assume a clean and bug free port, and no compatibility required moving forward, and a scope that doesn't involve security risks, that's already non trivial, since it's a codebase no one has context of. Probably not 500k worth of maintainance (because wtf were they doing in the first place) but I don't buy placing the current cost at 0. | ||
| ▲ | PetahNZ 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
If the original released a bunch more features that you wanted why wouldn't you just redo the conversion against the latest version? | ||
| ▲ | shimman 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |
This case looks like pure marketing fluff rather than sound engineering tho. | ||