Tentative high-level plans for 7.10.1

Herbert Valerio Riedel hvriedel at gmail.com
Mon Oct 6 09:28:41 UTC 2014

On 2014-10-06 at 11:03:19 +0200, p.k.f.holzenspies at 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.

More information about the ghc-devs mailing list