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