LTS 6?

[Joachim Breitner]

Hi, 

the Debian project, unable to sensibly downgrade packages, was unable
to build on LTS 5, so we are currently not following LTS, although we
would like to.

Is there a plan to cut LTS 6 soon, and preferably still using GHC-7.10?

Greetings,
Joachim

--
Joachim “nomeata” Breitner
  ma...@joachim-breitner.de • https://www.joachim-breitner.de/
  XMPP: nom...@joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F
  Debian Developer: nom...@debian.org

[Dan Burton]

LTS 5.0 was released on January 26, and LTS releases typically last for a minimum of 3 months before we cut a new one, so I wouldn't expect LTS 6.0 until May (or late April at the earliest).

I'm pretty sure LTS 5.0 is going to be the last LTS on ghc-7.10, unless ghc-8 gets delayed well past mid-April.

The typical thing to do is to consider LTS the baseline, building off of which it is OK to have newer versions of things, (and preferably leaf-level dependencies are the newer ones,) as long as they continue to work for your project.

-- Dan Burton

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Stackage" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to stackage+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Joachim Breitner]

Hi,

as I recall, when LTS 5 was released, it was said that its not going to be a full cycle, but rather an intermediate thing to fix the aeson issues, to be superseded as soon as the aeson bugs were fixed and the dependencies were updated. So this is not the case?

Greetings, Joachim

[Dan Burton]

This is not the case.

LTS 5 interrupted LTS 4 due to aeson-0.10 bugs, so it was LTS 4 that was not a full cycle. LTS 5 was intended to be a full cycle LTS release. We want every LTS release to be full cycle, and the only reason LTS 4 was not full cycle was due to bugs in aeson-0.10 that caused `stack install pandoc` to fail. We waited 4 months between the release of aeson-0.10 and including it in an LTS, and even then we discovered it was a mistake, so we're trying to be a little more cautious about gaining unanimous community support before upgrading.

I, for one, anticipated that it would take some time for aeson-0.11 to be released, and some more time after that for community adoption. I was wrong about the first part: aeson-0.11 came out pretty quickly once the spotlight was shining on aeson-0.10's bugs. As for the second part, we're still not quite to the point where nightly builds have switched over to aeson-0.11. Mainly, we're waiting on pandoc. Community adoption moved a lot faster compared to aeson-0.10, which means this version is probably good.

-- Dan Burton

[Joachim Breitner]

Hi,

thanks for the clarification.

Then I hope that you’ll switch nightly to aeson-0.11 before switching
to GHC-8. This will allow us to build on such a nightly snaptop. Not as
nice as an LTS release, but it serves the purpose.

Greetings,
Joachim

Am Donnerstag, den 17.03.2016, 09:44 -0700 schrieb Dan Burton:
> This is not the case.
>
> LTS 5 interrupted LTS 4 due to aeson-0.10 bugs, so it was LTS 4 that
> was not a full cycle. LTS 5 was intended to be a full cycle LTS
> release. We want every LTS release to be full cycle, and the only
> reason LTS 4 was not full cycle was due to bugs in aeson-0.10 that
> caused `stack install pandoc` to fail. We waited 4 months between the
> release of aeson-0.10 and including it in an LTS, and even then we
> discovered it was a mistake, so we're trying to be a little more
> cautious about gaining unanimous community support before upgrading.
>
> I, for one, anticipated that it would take some time for aeson-0.11
> to be released, and some more time after that for community adoption.
> I was wrong about the first part: aeson-0.11 came out pretty quickly
> once the spotlight was shining on aeson-0.10's bugs. As for the
> second part, we're still not quite to the point where nightly builds
> have switched over to aeson-0.11. Mainly, we're waiting on pandoc.
> Community adoption moved a lot faster compared to aeson-0.10, which
> means this version is probably good.
>
> -- Dan Burton
>

> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:31 AM, Joachim Breitner <mail@joachim-brei

> tner.de> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > as I recall, when LTS 5 was released, it was said that its not
> > going to be a full cycle, but rather an intermediate thing to fix
> > the aeson issues, to be superseded as soon as the aeson bugs were
> > fixed and the dependencies were updated. So this is not the case?
> >
> > Greetings, Joachim
> >

> > Am 17. März 2016 07:29:08 MEZ, schrieb Dan Burton <danburton.email@
> > gmail.com>: