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