On 2014-10-06 at 11:03:19 +0200, p.k.f.holzensp...@utwente.nl wrote: [...]
> The idea behind an LTS-GHC would be to continue bug-fixing on the > LTS-version, even if newer major versions no longer get bug-fixing > support. To some extent, there will be redundancies (bugs that have > disappeared in newer versions because newer code does the same and > more, still needing to be fixed on the LTS code base), but the upside > would be a clear prioritisation between stability (LTS) and innovation > (latest major release). As I'm not totally sure what you mean: Assuming we already had decided years ago to follow LTS-style, given GHC 7.0, 7.2, 7.4, 7.6, 7.8 and the future 7.10; which of those GHC versions would you have been considered a LTS version? [...] > The danger, of course, is that people aren't very enthusiastic about > bug-fixing older versions of a compiler, but for > language/compiler-uptake, this might actually be a Better Way. Maybe some of the commercial GHC users might be interested in donating the manpower to maintain older GHC versions. It's mostly a time-consuming QA & auditing process to maintain old GHCs. _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
