Doc: feature band source building #5373
Conversation
mthalman
requested review from
a team,
MichaelSimons,
marcpopMSFT and
mmitche
| - PSB artifacts: Source-built previous N.0.2xx release | ||
| - SDK: Source-built previous N.0.2xx release |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this what we agreed on for 3xx? You would never use 3xx SDK or artifacts to build the next version? You would always use 2xx?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That is my understanding.
|
|
||
| Enhanced SDK tooling that ships with Visual Studio updates: | ||
|
|
||
| - **Content**: Contains only SDK tooling differences from 1xx band (subset |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not fond of including "differences" here. It can be interpreted that source deltas are the only thing contained. The entire SDK tooling is included not just the differences.
|
|
||
| ### 3xx Band Build Requirements | ||
|
|
||
| - **Bootstrap (any version)**: Two-stage process using Microsoft source-built |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is confusing IMO because you really don't bootstrap 3xx at all. You are always using 2xx artifacts/sdk to build 3xx. The bootstrap here really applies to 2xx.
|
|
||
| - **Bootstrap (any version)**: Two-stage process using Microsoft source-built | ||
| 2xx artifacts + Microsoft 2xx SDK + prep script | ||
| - **Initial Release (N.0.200)**: Latest source-built 1xx artifacts + Latest |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What do you mean by latest? Latest released or latest as in tip? The document should be consistent in the terminology used - e.g. current/previous
| - Shared component artifacts: Source-built current N.0.1xx release | ||
| - PSB artifacts: Source-built previous N.0.2xx release | ||
| - SDK: Source-built previous N.0.2xx release | ||
| - **Bootstrap (N.0.300)**: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not seeing the value in bootstrapping 3xx as it never produces a true source built product. To me you would bootstrap 2xx and then do a normal 3xx build.
| # Final source-built outputs available in artifacts/x64/Release/ | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ```mermaid |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it make sense to have a more consistent naming of the Build Process inputs that map more closely to the build script? e.g. sdk/packages/shared-components or with-sdk/with-packages/with-shared-components?
| # Final source-built outputs available in artifacts/x64/Release/ | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ```mermaid |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it would be good to include 2xx in the Microsoft-built SDK and artifacts nodes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I intentionally omitted that. Technically, it would be 1xx if the current version of 2xx feature band was 200. It would be 2xx if the current version was 201+. So I left it out to be more general. Given that this is a bootstrapping scenario, it doesn't really matter to the distro maintainer where the Microsoft artifacts came from. I do point out this difference in the Input Artifacts Summary section. But I didn't really feel it was necessary in the scenario since it doesn't matter to the person running the steps.
| - PSB artifacts: Source-built previous N.0.2xx release | ||
| - SDK: Source-built previous N.0.2xx release | ||
|
|
||
| ### Scenario 1: 1xx Band Bootstrap |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see this doc as being a useful reference at times. Because of that I think have a table of contents would be useful mainly for these scenarios.
| - Include shared runtime and foundational components that all feature bands | ||
| depend on | ||
|
|
||
| ## Feature Band Characteristics |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Eventually this should reference SDK documentation the feature bands which isn't finalized yet.
| - PSB artifacts: Source-built previous N.0.2xx release | ||
| - SDK: Source-built previous N.0.2xx release | ||
|
|
||
| ### Scenario 1: 1xx Band Bootstrap |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I also see the 'Input Artifacts Summary' as being redundant with these scenarios. IMO the summary should be removed. When I read it I wanted to see this information along side the contents in the summary.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, it is redundant by design because it's a summary. It's meant to distill the inputs between the branches in a compact way for easy consumption. The scenario sections provide more detail.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thoughts on deep linking from the summary to the corresponding detailed section. As I read it, I was going back and forth because the summary alone was not providing enough details for me to understand.
| - PSB artifacts: Source-built previous N.0.2xx release | ||
| - SDK: Source-built previous N.0.2xx release | ||
|
|
||
| ### Scenario 1: 1xx Band Bootstrap |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IMO scenario x in the headings doesn't add value. The descriptive name is what is useful.
3 participants
This document provides guidance for Linux distribution maintainers on source building .NET SDK feature band branches of the VMR. It covers bootstrapping and ongoing servicing workflows when building multiple SDK feature bands.
Fixes #5354