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

Sun Nov 9 00:05:38 UTC 2014

I'll chime in as a Windows developer and say that personally I won't ever
use anything older than W7 ever again. While my company doesn't use
Haskell, we've already switched 99% of our systems to W7 from XP with a few
exceptions for legacy systems that aren't even networked anymore. There
might be some company or user out there still stuck in the past, but I have
never run into them.

I think it's time to drop support for XP, particularly if it means
improvements for the overwhelming majority of Windows haskellers.
On Nov 8, 2014 5:33 PM, "Mateusz Kowalczyk" <fuuzetsu at fuuzetsu.co.uk> wrote:

> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20141108/e7363e44/attachment.html>