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" <[email protected]> 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 > > <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" > > <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] > > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > > > > > -- > Mateusz K. > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
