RSA has not been cracked.  No one has demonstrated practically viable computing that's anywhere in the realm of breaking RSA.  There is no reason to change any of your practices.

The first thing to understand is that D-Wave has a long history of
[repeatedly making bogus claims to the popular press](https://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/18495/page1/).  Experts in quantum computing have been [criticizing](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=198) [and](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=204) [debunking](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=223) [D-Wave's](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=225) [claims](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=291) [for](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=306) [years](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=431).  (Try clicking each of the last seven words, for examples.)  So, this is not a company with a lot of credibility.

The latest news is that D-Wave has published a paper in Nature that describes [very limited progress towards quantum computing](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=639).  It is *not* a full-fledged quantum computer.  It can't do general-purpose computation; it can only solve one algorithm.  In particular, it can't be used to factor numbers or break RSA.  It can't handle realistic problem sizes; it only has 8 qubits, so it can only solve toy-sized problems (problems that you could have solved with pencil-and-paper anyway).  There is no evidence that it is faster than classical algorithms.  It's not faster than existing classical computers.  It does represent a step forward, but it's a limited step.

Researchers have been studying quantum computing intensely over the past decade or so.  There has been some progress, but it has been slow, and building a working quantum computer will require us to surmount some fundamental challenges (e.g., decoherence) that today no one knows how to deal with.  D-Wave gets a lot of press (mostly because they make irresponsible statements to the press to hype their work beyond its true import), but others have made more significant contributions.

You use the phrase "commercially viable quantum computer".  That's not a useful phrase.  Please understand that D-Wave has not demonstrated a viable quantum computer.  D-Wave may have sold something to one or two customers, but that doesn't mean they have licked the quantum computing problem or that their claims therefore necessarily have any validity.  Snake oil salesman managed to sell their stuff to plenty of customers, too, but their claims were invariably bogus.

If someone did build a working quantum computing that scaled to an unlimited number of qubits, and solved the decoherence problem, that'd be different: in that case, we'd have to move away from RSA, pronto.  But we're a long ways away from that.  Right now, it's an open question whether we'll see such a quantum computer in our lifetimes (or even if it will ever be possible to build one) -- quantum computing experts like to debate questions like those over drinks.  I suspect, if general-purpose quantum computing is possible, we'll have plenty of warning before quantum computers that can threaten RSA become readily available.

So, in short, no, you don't need to change your strategy or drop RSA.  I wouldn't.  Continuing to use RSA is perfectly reasonable and in line with industry practices.