lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Granroth, Neal V." <neal.granr...@thermofisher.com>
Subject RE: Lucene.NET 3.0.3 Build issues
Date Wed, 08 Aug 2012 20:33:38 GMT
Yes I pulled from the branch not the trunk. I apparently made the incorrect assumption that
it would be slightly more stable than the current work-in-progress.

Thanks for the quick attention and clarifications.  Especially for those that rely upon the
binary packages.

- Neal


-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Currens [mailto:currens.chris@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 3:21 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET 3.0.3 Build issues

FYI - SVN has been updated with corrected VS2010 solutions and added VS2012
directory/solution files.

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Christopher Currens <currens.chris@gmail.com
> wrote:

> See inline comments.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Christopher
>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Granroth, Neal V. <
> neal.granroth@thermofisher.com> wrote:
>
>> I just pulled down the 3.0.3 branch from SVN and have encountered an
>> initial problem with the VisualStudio solution file Lucene.Net.Core.sln in
>> the VS2010 folder.
>>
>> Did you pull down the 3.0.3 branch or trunk?  Trunk is 3.0.3, I'm not
> even sure the 3.0.3 branch exists anymore, and if it does, it is very, very
> out of date.
>
>
>> This solution will not load in VS2010, Visual Studio complains that it
>> was created with a newer version.
>> Opening the solution file in notepad reveals that it was created with
>> VS2012 (a not yet released product)
>>
>> They are supposed to be VS2010, if the pathing didn't give it away.  I
> believe it was my fault, as I usually will change them back to VS2010
> manually, but forgot to do that while I was adding .NET 3.5 support back
> in.  In order to automate the change, I needed to use the RC and forgot to
> change the solution files back. As an aside, VS2012 solution files are (or
> at least supposed to be) backwards compatible with VS2010.  On my laptop,
> which only has VS2010 SP1, they open and compile just fine.
>
>
>> It would be very helpful if those maintaining the source distribution
>> limit themselves to released development tools only.
>>
>> Since that's our normal policy, this isn't really an issue.
>
>
>> It also make me wonder of the viability of any binary distributions; they
>> certainly should not have been created with VS2012RC
>>
>
> Prescott used VS2010 to make the binary, so I don't think you need to
> worry about this.
>
>
>>
>> - Neal G.
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message