Thanks! What is on my mind is this:
‘industry’ has to think about the ‘costs’ of change as well as the ‘benefits’. However, if change actually ‘breaks’ nothing (or little), only ‘adds’, the ‘costs’ of change might be low. I am wondering if we (as a community) could do more to communicate what is actually ‘broken’ by change, making it easier for ‘industry’ to identify and assess that ‘cost’ and - perhaps - lowering the perceived barrier to moving forward.
(EDIT1: Taking this opportunity to acknowledge @tomjaguarpaw’s Upgrading from GHC 8.10 to GHC 9.6: an experience report)
(EDIT2: I may have underestimated what the GHC project already does, given the migration guides for each of GHC 7.8 to GHC 9.12.)