HTTP package - supported GHC versions

[Greg Weber]

You are probably unlikely to find the person you are looking for on the
libraries mail list on this subject, instead you are only going to find
advice :)


On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Ganesh Sittampalam <ganesh at earth.li> wrote:

> Do you (or anyone else) have any sense of how common GHC 7.0 usage is in
> practice?
>
> I do like the idea in principle of supporting old compilers, but it does
> come with a cost even if the code works with them right now.
>
> Also, if there's anyone out there that depends on HTTP and wants to
> support GHC 7.0 for whatever reason, that would swing it for me.
>
> On 04/09/2014 07:23, Andreas Abel wrote:
> > If it is not too much of a hassle, rather support old versions of GHC.
> > As mentioned below, there are long term support versions of Linux that
> > package older GHCs.
> >
> > I was positively surprised that the latest QuickCheck still supports GHC
> > 6.8.  Agda aims to support GHC 7.0 for a while still (which keeps me
> > from using some nice syntax extensions to Haskell).
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Andreas
> >
> > On 03.09.2014 19:09, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 2014-09-03 at 14:25:39 +0200, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>> More generally I'm not too keen on having a lower bound that is
> "stuck",
> >>> rather than moving forwards in a routine fashion as new GHC and Haskell
> >>> Platform releases appear. So I like the "three versions" rule and I
> >>> don't like "the first Haskell2010-supporting GHC onwards".
> >>>
> >>> All that said I do like the general idea of supporting a wide range of
> >>> GHCs with a low-level library like this and I'm happy to do so if
> >>> there's some plausible value in it.
> >>
> >> I don't have any strong opinion on "last three major GHC versions (with
> >> an associated HP release)" vs "the first Haskell2010-supporting GHC
> >> on-wards", either are fine with me, as even the latter one would
> >> typically span a 3-4 year window (which would be good enough for most
> >> Linux distros except certain "enterprise" ones...)
> >>
> >> However, one should just be aware that the lower your package is in the
> >> dependency graph, the larger the transitive avalanche effect of forcing
> >> newer lower-bounds on packages depending upon yours is.  Otoh, at some
> >> point this is bound to happen anyway...
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>    hvr
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Libraries mailing list
> >> Libraries at haskell.org
> >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
> >>
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20140908/a8674cc7/attachment.html>