Fw: Long term support - in general and Windows XP specifically

Mateusz Kowalczyk fuuzetsu at fuuzetsu.co.uk
Sat Nov 8 23:33:04 UTC 2014

On 11/08/2014 07:32 PM, Howard B. Golden wrote:
> Hi,
> I am combining the two topics because the issues are both
> support-related.
> First, long term support (LTS) is an important goal in making
> GHC/Haskell a viable production platform. I would argue that
> providing it is a necessary condition to encourage more adoption of
> Haskell by "plain users" (as opposed to those willing to take more
> risks). This includes both individuals and organizations. I believe
> this makes LTS a high priority for the community.
> LTS requires support of both GHC and stable libraries. Any plan for
> LTS must incorporate a plan for identifying libraries to keep
> supporting for the same period. This must be part of the effort. FP
> Complete's Stackage is one approach.
> Practically, each LTS version requires significant maintainer
> resources. Therefore, there is a tension between how many versions to
> support, how long to support them, and how much demand there will be
> for new features. The developers need to get a sense of how much
> value the "plain user" will get from a new release versus bug fixes
> and backports to an LTS release. As a thought experiment (and perhaps
> a survey of users), how many users are content with GHC 7.4, 7.6 and
> 7.8, or even earlier releases? Will they clamor for the new features
> in 7.10, or is this more aimed at those who are experimenting or are
> willing to take greater risk? What is the current demographic of
> users/GHC release usage? Based on the results of this study, we'll
> have a better idea of what release to make the first LTS one. I would
> suggest starting with a prior release based on what is being used
> now. For example, find out how many users are using 7.4 and ask what
> difficulties they would have in adopting 7.6. Try to get a sense of
> what the first LTS release should be, recognizing that you won't get
> unanimous agreement.
> I am an interested observer, not an active developer, so take my
> comments with this in mind. I wonder if the release of 7.10 is being
> rushed. Perhaps once a year releases are too frequent for everyone
> except the bleeding edge, who may be satisfied with snapshots. Maybe
> a reallocation of developer effort should be considered. This
> question deserves to be considered even if it is ultimately
> discarded.

If organisations care then they should voice their thoughts *and*
provide some developer effort to make the backports. Delaying new
releases and pulling off volunteers to do soul-crushing fix backporting
because it might, just might, make it easier for some business out there
to achieve something is silly. No one wants to put their free time into
porting stuff years back especially if it might not even matter.

> The issue of Windows XP support should be considered using a similar
> approach. If an LTS release is created with Windows XP support, this
> should satisfy XP users for a period of time. It could then be
> discussed when XP support would no longer be part of a later version.
> I don't know what API differences there are between XP and Vista or
> Window 7 that impact GHC. Do the newer APIs provide a significant
> benefit that justifies dropping XP support? Could newer features be
> used only where essential, so degraded XP support can be maintained
> longer?

XP came out in 2001. There's LTS and then there's 13 year old OS that's
after EOL from its own developer.

> I hope my perspective is of value to the developers.
> Regards,
> Howard Northridge, CA, USA
> ----- Original Message ----- From: Austin Seipp
> <austin at well-typed.com> To: "ghc-devs at haskell.org"
> <ghc-devs at haskell.org> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, November 7, 2014 2:07 PM Subject: GHC Weekly News -
> 2014/11/07
> [Excerpt] - Austin also opened a discussion about a possible LTS
> branch for GHC, spawned off from a suggestion by John Lato a few
> weeks email. This discussion has been brought up several times before
> this, but for the most part has fizzled out a bit. But maybe with a
> different focus - on a separate branch with a team of maintainers -
> we can hash out a plan of action, and just give it a whirl. 
> https://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/2014-November/007207.html 
> - Austin Seipp brought up a question about Windows support: can we 
> officially drop support for XP, now that Microsoft has done the
> same? And what minimum version requirements should we endorse? Vista
> or Windows 7 would give improvements due to API improvements, with 
> Windows 7 offering even more. If you're a GHC on Windows user,
> please let us know!
> https://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/2014-November/007199.html 
> _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing
> list ghc-devs at haskell.org 
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Mateusz K.

More information about the ghc-devs mailing list