I don’t follow. Other compilers do exactly that. This issue Tracking issue for `illegal_floating_point_literal_pattern` compatibility lint · Issue #41620 · rust-lang/rust · GitHub is one of many reads about how e.g. rust handles backwards compatibility breaking changes (and you could argue there as well that it’s a bug).
Complaining about resources is welcome, but I’m not sure it’s enough of an argument. It’s about goals. The GHC team could very well declare this as a goal and then talk to industry backers, contributors and HF whether there will be financial or manpower funding.
But it does not appear to be a goal, at least according to the medium-term priorities. In section “Insufficient Resources” it’s not listed. In the section “Breaking Changes” it’s said that those are the responsibility of the GHC Steering Committee. But I don’t think the GHC Steering Committee rules over release management and deprecation cycles, or does it?
I think this requires more clarity.