If you had followed the Riecoin development from the beginning then you should know moving forward by the hardfork is good.
I'm here from the beginning as you may see. And hardforking is a bad practice.
cat << EOF | patch -p0
+++ src/makefile.unix
@@ -38,6 +38,7 @@
-l boost_filesystem\$(BOOST_LIB_SUFFIX) \\
-l boost_program_options\$(BOOST_LIB_SUFFIX) \\
-l boost_thread\$(BOOST_LIB_SUFFIX) \\
+ -l boost_chrono\$(BOOST_LIB_SUFFIX) \\
-l db_cxx\$(BDB_LIB_SUFFIX) \\
-l ssl \\
-l crypto
EOF
sha1sum -c << EOF
9928c39fc2d593e2e83a55e51eecf7b9608c78fc *src/makefile.unix
EOF
I stay in the original network. Decide for yourself or someone will decide for you.
I'm surprised by this. This was in discussion in this thread for a long time and I went ahead because I didn't see any opposition. Some doubts, which are natural, but never strong opposition and a lot of support for the fork.
BTW, that patch you submitted in February is not needed if you compile with gitian, maybe you needed it because you were using the wrong version of boost.
Also, thanks to a little mistake I made, we actually have one more week before the actual fork takes place. This gives everyone more time to update, rendering the "sudden move without notice" point obsolete.
Those of you who want to stay on the old fork would like to keep in mind that most (>99%) of the miners already are on 0.10.2, meaning that you'll be left with a high difficulty.
Now that I think of it, there may be some interest on people who hold RIC to keep the old fork alive and have it accepted on an exchange: they would be allowed to dump their coins from the old fork without affecting their holdings on the new fork.
You have my blessing (if it means anything to anyone), but I won't be supporting both forks (by this I mean fixing bugs and generating new binaries); only the fork that the majority already accepted. Applying new commits from one fork to the other should be very easy though.