It used to be that way. VS2012 is the first version that produces backwards compatible projects *and* solutions. There's an msdn blog entry[1] that discusses it. It does focus more projects, but starts with discussing solutions and how having it all backwards compatible would ease transitions for most companies. There are a few project types that aren't backwards compatible, but I think the solution will still open in both, with a notification that it can't load the project type.
Excerpt: "In other words, we now have project round-tripping capability so you can work with the latest features but still keep the solution compatible with team members using an older version of Visual Studio." Anyway, it's about time they did this. Supporting multiple versions of VS files has been an annoying missing feature. [1] http://blogs.msdn.com/b/zainnab/archive/2012/06/05/visual-studio-2012-compatibility-aka-project-round-tripping.aspx On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Michael Herndon <mhern...@wickedsoftware.net > wrote: > 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 <geobmx...@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 <geobmx...@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.granr...@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.ch...@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.ch...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > See inline comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Christopher > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Granroth, Neal V. < > > > > > neal.granr...@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. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
