8283723: Update Visual Studio 2022 to version 17.1.0 for Oracle builds on Windows

[RealCLanger]

I skipped the changes to building.html/building.md because this would simply be wrong for 11u. Also, changing jib-profiles.js is pointless. However, the updates to createWindowsDevkit.sh are good to have and apply cleanly.

---

Progress

• Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
• JDK-8283723 needs maintainer approval
• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

• JDK-8283723: Update Visual Studio 2022 to version 17.1.0 for Oracle builds on Windows (Enhancement - P4)

Reviewers

• Matthias Baesken (@MBaesken - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk11u-dev.git pull/1874/head:pull/1874
$ git checkout pull/1874

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/1874
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk11u-dev.git pull/1874/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 1874

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 1874

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk11u-dev/pull/1874.diff

Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back clanger! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

[openjdk]

This backport pull request has now been updated with issue from the original commit.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 00: Full (20bf0be0)

[MBaesken]

LGTM

The script now needs a parameter for the Visual Studio version, but this should not be a big issue for such an internal helper script.

[openjdk]

@RealCLanger This change is no longer ready for integration - check the PR body for details.

[GoeLin]

Hi @RealCLanger
I am not so sure we should do this as backport with all the leftouts.
Also, changes touching building.html and jib are frequent, so backporting
will get more complicated if we sometimes backport changes and somtimes leave them out.

[RealCLanger]

Hi @RealCLanger I am not so sure we should do this as backport with all the leftouts. Also, changes touching building.html and jib are frequent, so backporting will get more complicated if we sometimes backport changes and somtimes leave them out.

Hm, I think the risk is low as it does not affect the product but only improves the script to generate devkits. Regarding changes to building.html: Here we will have to diff to upstream releases since build environments remain different. And, jib is something that OpenJDK does not care.

After all, I leave it to you to approve or reject. In the latter case we can flag the bug jdk11u-na

[GoeLin]

I agree the change to the dev kit are good, but this is just not a backport of the change.
I guess you should open issue "[11u] backport VS2022 devkit changes of 8283723" or the like for this change.

[bridgekeeper]

@RealCLanger This pull request has been inactive for more than 4 weeks and will be automatically closed if another 4 weeks passes without any activity. To avoid this, simply add a new comment to the pull request. Feel free to ask for assistance if you need help with progressing this pull request towards integration!

[openjdk]

⚠️ @RealCLanger This change is now ready for you to apply for maintainer approval. This can be done directly in each associated issue or by using the /approval command.

[bridgekeeper]

@RealCLanger This pull request has been inactive for more than 4 weeks and will be automatically closed if another 4 weeks passes without any activity. To avoid this, simply add a new comment to the pull request. Feel free to ask for assistance if you need help with progressing this pull request towards integration!

[RealCLanger]

Closing as per @GoeLin's comment.