Skip to content

Conversation

@ffaf1
Copy link
Collaborator

@ffaf1 ffaf1 commented Nov 12, 2025

Backport #11275

  • Patches conform to the coding conventions.
  • Is this a PR that fixes CI? No. If so, it will need to be backported to older cabal release branches (ask maintainers for directions).

@mergify mergify bot mentioned this pull request Nov 12, 2025
2 tasks
@ffaf1 ffaf1 added the backport label Nov 12, 2025
@ffaf1 ffaf1 force-pushed the preflight-3.16-3.14 branch from 3e0c825 to f56098e Compare November 12, 2025 09:23
@geekosaur
Copy link
Collaborator

Why are we backporting to 3.14 (and 3.12)?

@ffaf1
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ffaf1 commented Nov 13, 2025

3.14 is still suppoted, am I wrong?

@geekosaur
Copy link
Collaborator

geekosaur commented Nov 13, 2025

If we're doing it the usual way, 3.14 went out of support when 3.16.0.0 was released.

If we decide to have an LTS, 3.16 branch should be it because it matches GHC's (intended) LTS branch.

We don't really have the resources to support multiple branches (which is a large part of why the idea of a cabal LTS branch is somewhat iffy). Keeping 3.14 in support will be pushing things.

@ulysses4ever
Copy link
Collaborator

Agree with Brandon: I wouldn't bother about 3.14 at this point. It was a good major release with several bug-fix releases, but I think we have to move on.

@ffaf1
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ffaf1 commented Nov 14, 2025

Makes sense!

@ffaf1 ffaf1 closed this Nov 14, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants