lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Herndon <mhern...@wickedsoftware.net>
Subject Re: Lucene.NET 3.0.3 Build issues
Date Thu, 09 Aug 2012 00:41:41 GMT
I think it's usually the project files that are backwards compatible not
the solution files. So you need a solution for each vs version but should
be able to keep the proj files the same.

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:

> Yes
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: Christopher Currens
> Sent: 8/8/2012 4:22 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET 3.0.3 Build issues
>
> Oh, did you do that so we'd have a branch to do bug fixes?  I had forgotten
> about that.
>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > I just created 3.0.3 last weekend - it should be incredibly up to date.
> > Anything in trunk should be there
> >
> > Sent from my Windows Phone
> > ________________________________
> > From: Christopher Currens
> > Sent: 8/8/2012 1:35 PM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Lucene.NET 3.0.3 Build issues
> >
> > Thanks for the feedback.  Let us know if you run into any more
> > issues/concerns.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Christopher
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Granroth, Neal V. <
> > neal.granroth@thermofisher.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message