Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4828200B3E for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 20:35:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id D3691160AC1; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 18:35:18 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 25C6A160ABF for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 20:35:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 17229 invoked by uid 500); 7 Sep 2016 18:35:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@reef.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@reef.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@reef.apache.org Received: (qmail 17213 invoked by uid 99); 7 Sep 2016 18:35:16 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Sep 2016 18:35:16 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 6F967C6E61 for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 18:35:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.677 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.677 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=2.397] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd1-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=weimo-de.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mx2-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DEAiyBF7Rwcv for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 18:35:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ua0-f169.google.com (mail-ua0-f169.google.com [209.85.217.169]) by mx2-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx2-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 61B7E5FC13 for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 18:35:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua0-f169.google.com with SMTP id b7so20476158uab.3 for ; Wed, 07 Sep 2016 11:35:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=weimo-de.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=8W6RKM8Km5HYA5N2fLL37B5+Nrnabfodl2ovlhQ+fWs=; b=Flpgg7j65D+EfDGwA7cdX4oPviy026laTmvphx7cmlSAkyz6/0xyUa3b6j1yfd3rtn rffHiQ9rwt0cbn6bcJ77BUmdR3QTQU0DcU4WOlSYzGmTBy7RTZ2540+rR8DXVXTub4Q0 b3nlAdMWQydxzsn3KbmzadtJDd+HnkhAG8QZiK4MnW6kfxyEK1Uk2WXoBa/s5BdsS6DV qzpxHEoX/EPbZTGj6swxVQAC91g1JwD/5k3RF9XK/4/8Gsfd0JmjteZpAiwwdjg9OGFP V7vFNqLM1NQ/qcUxtc/5lmhX5jVPE/9dH8rqdJ1r9mn0RNtDomlgVfgJ6yIhcHb07as5 5Suw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=8W6RKM8Km5HYA5N2fLL37B5+Nrnabfodl2ovlhQ+fWs=; b=RUy+4Ta/1TgDumN/IVUeiU5oQxRgEORdRgFBtG41YUTC8Eo7H6N8yqGXWT53W/tG9M dAjFe0kSCWqmQ9y4HmgCKQvshgEivB1PFJXM6bl9cuhMN3vVnxM8JV1qH+LvHw74VArr 6FrLuZpMQU4h12nHl2if4Ka51sOolAGTDE7wQOmju3LBcYTzXCXPct2KymW4X1bxzdrQ 6ki3sZyuVS3f9pvlOjMxjklZKpfjE71cw+0hSpk6XU0cwQqtq2yDSLGxifBC4c9DPC5e GEXJj990QKUpsaiYyHeZyjNyPASfKa1r62r67ZKeAGQcieiXtmGPLhVe8WUAJ1YacNDB DU1w== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwNG0UwKhzb3ekTBHlqL/3iIn+0C6AD9RCeWbesztAn6HddXOZ9Pc4KtA7YY/dEryZc0MvvmlcQL0j7/uw== X-Received: by 10.159.34.106 with SMTP id 97mr14417745uad.50.1473273314537; Wed, 07 Sep 2016 11:35:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.159.34.115 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 11:34:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [50.251.238.98] In-Reply-To: References: <254dd51f-7457-519c-082e-6275845c00a4@weimo.de> From: Markus Weimer Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 11:34:54 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: .Net Core Compatibility To: REEF Developers Mailinglist Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 archived-at: Wed, 07 Sep 2016 18:35:19 -0000 On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Mariia Mykhailova wrote: > > Alternatively we could have a dedicated build job in AppVeyor which focuses on running portability analyzer and reports the number of violations, and this number must not increase for each PR. That is what I was thinking. Right now, we have neither one issue completely resolved nor one project which builds on CoreCLR. Hence, committing to a monotonic decrease in the overall violation count would be most feasible. We can also maintain the current number of violations in the repository and decrease it with every commit that aims to fix issues. That way, we make our bound on CoreCLR incompatibilities ever tighter. WDYT? Markus