A Deep Dive into How .NET Builds and Ships

Matt Mitchell

This is a deep technical dive into the machinery and processes used by the .NET Team to build and ship .NET. It will be of interest to those who wish to know about such topics as:

  • How .NET builds a product developed across many repos.
  • Safely handles security patches.
  • Preps and validates a product for release.

This post begins by laying out the multi-repository world that makes up the .NET product, its inherent challenges, and how we deal with them. This is a review of some of the information presented in The Evolving Infrastructure of .NET Core. Then it takes a close look at how we build, prep, and ship the product, especially around releases that include security fixes.

Our Principles

  • Developers use GitHub (and the tools and practices used/described there) as their primary development environment.
  • Be transparent about how we build and ship.
  • Be responsible with our response to security vulnerabilities and premature disclosure.

A Land of Many Repos

.NET is developed not as a monolithic repo, but as a set of repos that have inter-dependencies on one another. See .NET repositories for information on where various functionality is developed. For instance, the dotnet/runtime repo builds the core .NET runtime and some additional NuGet packages. Its outputs are consumed by dotnet/aspnetcoredotnet/installerdotnet/extensions, and a few others. Consumption of dependencies in .NET takes a few forms:

  • Consuming information about the public API of a dependency – After a major release, the public API doesn’t change. During active development of a new major version, however, it may shift on a regular basis as new APIs or new features are introduced.
  • Referencing specific version numbers of assets produced in another repo – For example, dotnet/aspnetcore may produce NuGet packages that encode a dependency on a specific version of Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.
  • Redistributing dependencies produced in another repo – Some examples:
    • While Microsoft.Extensions.Logging is released as a standalone NuGet package on https://nuget.org, it is also re-packaged within the ASP.NET Core shared framework as part of the dotnet/aspnetcore build.
    • The ASP.NET Core runtime produced in the dotnet/aspnetcore build can be installed as a standalone component, but is also contained within the .NET SDK that is produced out of dotnet/installer.
  • Building dependencies from source code – It isn’t always possible to use or redistribute the .NET binaries built by Microsoft’s CI system. Specifically, prebuilt binaries are typically forbidden in Linux distributions. This means dependencies are sometimes built from source code.

The upshot of this is that when we release a version of .NET, we cannot simply produce a build of each repo in parallel, sign, publish and release. Instead, we must ensure that the desired version of each dependency is referenced in all repos that make up the product and reference that dependency. Updating a version of a dependency in a repo means creating a new build against those updated dependencies, which in turn may require other repos to update their dependencies and rebuild. This set of inter-dependent repos forms a graph. In .NET 5, this dependency flow graph is currently 6 layers deep (dotnet/runtime-> dotnet/winforms -> dotnet/wpf-> dotnet/windowsdesktop -> dotnet/sdk -> dotnet/installer).

Tracking our Dependencies

Given that this dependency graph is rather complex, we need automated ways to track and update it. We track dependencies via metadata in the eng/Version.Details.xml file of each repo. This file identifies the names and versions of a set of input dependencies. Each dependency also identifies the source commit and repo that was built to create it. For example, this excerpt is from dotnet/installer. It identifies that dotnet/installer has an input asset called Microsoft.NET.Sdk at version 5.0.100-rc.1.20403.9, produced out of a build of https://github.com/dotnet/sdk at 56005e13634b9388aa53596891bc2e8192e2978c.

eng/Version.Details.xml (excerpt from dotnet/installer @ dc95de00046550c2a5a053153ca78ef89a114fd7)
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
    <!-- Other dependencies.. -->
    <Dependency Name="Microsoft.NET.Sdk" Version="5.0.100-rc.1.20403.9">

The dependency names then correspond to a set of MSBuild property names present in an eng/Versions.props file that also lives in the repo:

eng/Versions.props (excerpt from dotnet/installer @ dc95de00046550c2a5a053153ca78ef89a114fd7)
  <!-- Dependencies from https://github.com/dotnet/sdk -->

The repo is then free to use the MicrosoftNETSdkPackageVersion property as it wishes. In this case, it’s used to specify the version of package named Microsoft.NET.Sdk as well as part of the path to an archive zip file produced in the dotnet/sdk build.

Notice that because the source information for a dependency is preserved within the eng/Version.Details.xml file, it’s possible to look up the eng/Version.Details.xml at the source repo + commit and determine its dependencies. Doing so recursively builds up a graph of all dependencies present within the product. See below for a visualization of a recent Preview 8 build. We divide these dependencies into two categories:

  • Product – Product dependencies represent those that are critical to product functionality. If the outputs of all builds contributing product dependencies to the graph are gathered together, along with existing external sources (e.g. https://nuget.org) the product should function as expected.
  • Toolset – Toolset dependencies are not shipped with the product. They may represent inputs for testing purposes or build purposes. Without these, the product should function as expected. These are excluded from the product drop and not shipped on release day. These should not be confused with the compilers and build tools packaged with the SDK, like F#, C#, or MSBuild. Instead, these dependencies represent functionality that is used to package or sign the product, bootstrap testing, etc.

Updating our Dependencies

We update our tracked dependencies automatically using a custom service called Maestro (see https://github.com/dotnet/arcade-services for the implementation). Every official build (on any branch) contains a stage that reports its status to the Maestro service. Maestro maintains a registry of metadata about the reported builds, including a list of their outputs, commits, repo urls, etc. Maestro then uses concepts called channels and subscriptions to determine what to do with these newly reported builds. We call this process ‘dependency flow’.

  • Channels – Not all builds are created with the same intent – A build of the main branch of dotnet/efcore may be intended for day to day development, meaning it’s outputs should flow to other repos’ branches that are also tracking day to day development. On the other hand, a build of a test branch is not intended to flow anywhere. Channels are effectively tags that signal intent for a build. Any build can be assigned to any channel.
  • Subscriptions – Subscriptions map builds of a source repo that have a specific intent (assigned to a certain channel) onto a target branch in another repo. When a build is assigned to a channel, Maestro alters the state of the target branch to update its dependencies by modifying the eng/Version.Details.xml and eng/Versions.props files. It then opens a pull request with the changes.

ependency Flow For Preview 8
Note: The red path represents the longest path through the graph from a build time standpoint

It’s also interesting to note that channels affect publishing of a build’s assets. A build not assigned to any channel does not publish its outputs anywhere. Assignment to a channel will trigger publishing of those assets, and the channel defines what the desired endpoints are. For instance, the channel for day to day development of .NET 5 indicates that files like Sdk installers or zip archives should be pushed to the dotnetcli storage account, and packages should be pushed to the dotnet5 Azure DevOps NuGet feed. On the other hand, the channels used for the engineering services and tools push to the dotnet-eng NuGet package feed. What this means is that the intent of a build does not have to be known at build time. Channel assignment indicates intent and ensures that the outputs are published to the right locations based on that intent.

One thing to note: currently the Maestro system defining channels, subscriptions and dependency flow does not have a publicly available portal for visualization, though Maestro’s behavior is publicly visible via dependency update pull requests. https://github.com/dotnet/arcade/issues/1818 covers this feature. Let us know if this is valuable by commenting or voting on the issue.

A little bit more on channels and intent

Typical product development workflows assign build intent based on branch. As the number of repos and scales up, this model tends to break down. Different teams have different development practices and branching strategies motivated by varying requirements. This is especially true when repos ship in multiple vehicles that run on separate schedules or have differing servicing requirements. For example the Roslyn C# compiler ships in the .NET SDK as well as separately in Visual Studio. By using subscriptions which pull builds that have been to assigned to channels, we end up with a cleaner producer/consumer model for the flow of dependencies.

For example, the dotnet/sdk repo pulls in a wide variety of input dependencies for .NET 5 Preview 8. One of those is the NuGet client. NuGet tends to produce new builds, test them, and then pick and choose which builds are ready for insertion into Visual Studio or the .NET SDK. Rather than have the dotnet/sdk team keep track of which branches NuGet is using at the time and the state of the builds, they simply set up a subscription to target the release/5.0.1xx-preview8 with NuGet.Client builds assigned to the ‘VS 16.8’ channel. Similarly, the NuGet team also doesn’t need to anything about the SDK’s branching structure, only that they want builds intended for VS 16.8.

Coherency and Incoherency

Day to day, code gets checked into each repo, builds of those code changes are performed, and those builds are assigned to channels. Maestro uses the subscription information to flow new outputs produced by those builds to other repos. For development channels, this process occurs on a continual basis. The product is constantly evolving and changing. Because some repos flow through the dependency graph along multiple paths, there may be varying versions of a single dependency within the product at any given moment. We call this state “incoherent”. For day to day builds, this is usually fine. The output product generally behaves as expected, and teams can take their time reacting to breaking changes, introducing new functionality, or dealing with failures in dependency update PRs. When creating a product for release, however, we want a single version of each asset referenced within the repo dependency graph. A single version of the runtime, a single version of aspnetcore, a single version of each NuGet package, etc. We call this state “coherent”.

Incoherency represents a possible error state. For an example let’s take a look at the .NET shared framework runtime. It exposes a specific public API surface area. While multiple versions of it may be referenced in the repo dependency graph, the SDK ships with just one. This runtime must satisfy all of the demands of the transitively referenced components (e.g. WinForms and WPF) that may execute on that runtime. If the runtime does not satisfy those demands (e.g. breaking API change, bug, etc.), failures may occur. In an incoherent graph, because all repositories have not ingested the same version of the shared framework, there is a possibility that a breaking change has been missed.

Producing and Releasing a Product

Let’s now take a look at the workflow by which we build and release the product.

We can think of the Maestro subscriptions as forming a flow graph, each edge representing flow of changes between repositories. If no additional ‘real’ (not dependency flow) changes are made in any repo in the graph, then eventually the flow of changes will cease and the product will reach an unchanging, coherent state where there is a single version of each dependency. This is what we drive for on a regular basis for preview and servicing releases. The general flow for each release is as follows:

  1. Prep for the new release – Update branding (e.g. version numbers, preview identifiers, which packages will ship) for the upcoming release. If this is a preview, then new branches are forked from the primary development branches, and stabilization is done in the new branches.
  2. Commit changes – Commit any changes necessary for the release (e.g. approved bug fixes) in each repo.
  3. Iterate until coherent – Allow new builds to complete and dependencies flow until we reach a coherent state.
  4. Prep dotnet/source-build release – The coherent product’s source code dependencies are fed through the dotnet/source-build project.
  5. Validate – Perform additional validation that isn’t present in PR/CI testing (e.g. test Visual Studio Scenarios).
  6. Send dotnet/source-build to partners – The product’s source code is sent to partners (e.g Red Hat) that need to build .NET from source in their own CI.
  7. Fix if necessary – If any issues are found, prepare any additional changes, commit, and go back to step 3.
  8. Release – The product is now ready to ship, as a set of binaries in the appropriate packages for each supported operating system.

This process sometimes completes significantly in advance of a scheduled release date. That’s what we hope for. When that happens, the assets just wait in Azure blob storage and various package feeds, to be released on the scheduled ship date. Other times, this process completes very near the scheduled ship date, and there is very little breathing room. This is particularly challenging when the scheduled ship date is immovable, like when it is tied to the first day of a big conference.

Code Flow

Day to day development of .NET is done on GitHub. For releases containing security fixes, we need a non-public place to commit those fixes, combined with any non-security changes made publicly on GitHub. Committing and building internally prevents early disclosure of vulnerabilities that would place customer applications at risk. To satisfy this requirement, we maintain two parallel sets of branches in an Azure DevOps repo:

  • A direct copy of a corresponding branch in GitHub – For example, if there is a release/5.0 branch in GitHub’s dotnet/runtime repo, there is a release/5.0 branch in the Azure DevOps dotnet-runtime repo and the HEAD always matches. Every time a commit is made into GitHub, the dotnet-runtime repo does a fast-forward merge to pull in the new changes.
  • A corresponding internal/release/5.0 branch that is related to the release/5.0 branch – Every time a commit is made to GitHub’s release/5.0 branch, the commit is merged into internal/release/5.0. If there are no security fixes committed to the internal/release/5.0 branch, its HEAD matches the release/5.0 branch. If there are, then HEAD diverges.

This parallel set of branches gives us a way to produce a product with security fixes while performing as many of our changes in the open as possible:

  • When we build a release without security fixes – The internal/release/... branches are unused. All commits and dependency flow occur against the GitHub release/... branches.
  • When we build a release with security fixes – Those specific fixes are checked into the appropriate internal/release/... branch in Azure DevOps and dependency flow targets the internal/release/... branch in each repo. Any changes that are not security or dependency flow related are committed to the corresponding public GitHub branch, then automatically merged into the internal/release/... branch. On release day, we open a PR to merge the internal/release/... branch back into the public release branch (e.g. if commit was in internal/release/5.0, we merge it back to release/5.0). This resets the internal branch state back to matching the public branch state, readying us for the next release.

There is one unfortunate side effect of the public -> internal merges. If dependency flow is enabled on both public and internal branches, i.e. public builds flow to public GitHub branches and internal builds flow to internal branches, then every dependency flow commit on the public side would conflict as it is merged into the internal branches. This requires extensive, error-prone, manual intervention as there can be 10s of dependency flow commits/day, spread across many repos. To avoid this, we largely turn off public dependency flow when building an internal release, except for some leaf nodes in the graph (e.g. roslyn, fsharp, MSBuild, etc.), and internal dependency flow when building a public release. Thus, the runtime and SDK functionality packaged with the daily builds of the publicly available installer falls out of date until release day. The .NET team will be looking into robust ways to maintain both public and internal builds in parallel in the future.

Shipping and Non-Shipping Assets

.NET divides the outputs of each build into two categories:

  • Shipping – These are assets that should appear on external endpoints like https://nuget.org, the .NET download sites, etc. These assets typically get “stable” versions (e.g. 5.0.6) rather than “non-stable” versions (e.g. 5.0.6-servicing.20364.11) when building for RTM and servicing releases.
  • Non-Shipping – These are assets that do not appear on external endpoints. They always have non-stable versions. They are sometimes known as transport packages.

Typically, non-shipping assets exist for the purpose of inter-repo transport. For instance, dotnet/sdk produces a package called “Microsoft.NET.Sdk” which is only redistributed from within the dotnet/installer output (zip and tar.gz files, for example) and does not appear on https://nuget.org. We always use non-stable versioning for non-shipping packages so that their versions remain unique build to build.

Stable builds and Dependency Flow

There is one particularly interesting implication of our multi-repo OSS development environment. As discussed earlier in this deep dive, the repos tend to have strong dependency ties to one another. They redistribute many binaries and reference specific version numbers (e.g. NuGet package versions) from their dependencies. For example, Microsoft.Extensions.Logging is built out of dotnet/runtime, has its contents redistributed in the dotnet/aspnetcore shared framework, but also ships independently to https://nuget.org. When we build a new version of Microsoft.Extensions.Logging for a release, we want it to have a stable and predictable version number. We want 5.0.6, not 5.0.6-servicing.20364.11. But what happens when we need to build dotnet/runtime more than once for a given release? The first build of dotnet/runtime built Microsoft.Extensions.Logging version 5.0.6, and the subsequent build also did the same. As a rule, NuGet feeds are immutable. We can’t simply overwrite the old package, nor would we want to. So how do we flow this new instance of Microsoft.Extensions.Logging and ensure that the downstream repos pick up the correct package?

The .NET team solves this by having 3 sets of NuGet feeds our build infrastructure:

  • Shipping feeds – These contain non-stableshipping packages produced in day to day builds. There are internal and public variants of these for each major product version:
    • dotnet5 – This feed is seen in each product repo’s NuGet.config file and is publicly accessible.
    • dotnet5-internal – This feed is automatically added to the NuGet.config of a repo when doing official builds. Adding it at build time avoids NuGet restore issues when building publicly, where it is not accessible. This feed only recieves new packages when doing internal builds.
  • Non-shipping feeds – These contain non-stablenon-shipping packages produced in day to day builds. Such packages always have unique version numbers for each new build. There are internal and public variants of these for each major product version:
    • dotnet5-transport – This feed is seen in each product repo’s NuGet.config file and is publicly accessible.
    • dotnet5-internal-transport – This feed is automatically added to the NuGet.config of a repo when doing official builds. Adding it at build time avoids NuGet restore issues when building publicly, where it is not accessible. This feed only recieves new packages when doing internal builds.
  • Isolated feeds – These feeds are created dynamically for each build for its stableshipping packages. The feeds are named based on the repo and sha that was built. Maestro will then update the NuGet.config file in a dependency update PR to include any feeds required to access the desired stable packages. Each build ensures a clean NuGet cache to avoid accidentally picking up the wrong instance of a stable package. On release day these assets are pushed to https://nuget.org and any isolated feed containing packages with shipped versions are cleared out. This ensures that https://nuget.org is the “source of truth”. Subsequent Maestro dependency updates will automatically remove these isolated feeds as they are no longer needed. A sample NuGet.config is shown below, from https://github.com/dotnet/cli/blob/v3.1.300/NuGet.config:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
    <clear />
    <!--Begin: Package sources managed by Dependency Flow automation. Do not edit the sources below.-->
    <add key="darc-int-dotnet-core-setup-0c2e69c" value="https://pkgs.dev.azure.com/dnceng/_packaging/darc-int-dotnet-core-setup-0c2e69ca/nuget/v3/index.json" />
    <add key="darc-int-dotnet-corefx-059a4a1" value="https://pkgs.dev.azure.com/dnceng/_packaging/darc-int-dotnet-corefx-059a4a19/nuget/v3/index.json" />
    <!--End: Package sources managed by Dependency Flow automation. Do not edit the sources above.-->
    <add key="dotnet-core" value="https://dotnetfeed.blob.core.windows.net/dotnet-core/index.json" />
    <add key="dotnet-tools" value="https://pkgs.dev.azure.com/dnceng/public/_packaging/dotnet-tools/nuget/v3/index.json" />
    <add key="dotnet3" value="https://pkgs.dev.azure.com/dnceng/public/_packaging/dotnet3/nuget/v3/index.json" />

The separation of shipping and non-shipping packages into different feeds is useful. Combining the required shipping package feeds with the standard https://nuget.org feed means that the NuGet restore behavior seen after a product releases will closely match how we validate pre-release. Non-shipping packages cannot accidentally appear in the restore graph. This also gives developers a cleaner NuGet.config file when consuming daily development builds. See Installers and Binaries and Sample NuGet Config examples.

Internal isolated feeds and public builds

Recently, a developer noticed that they were unable to build the tagged v3.1.300 commit. The 3.1.300 SDK release was built internally, so the isolated “darc-int-” feeds automatically propagated into the NuGet.config file are not publicly available. While these feeds are empty after release day, simply their inclusion in the NuGet.config file will cause the NuGet restore step to fail. This behavior has long been a complaint among the .NET teams. On release day, the internal to public merge PRs require manual fixups (removal of any darc-int- feeds) to pass. The good news is that this shouldn’t be a problem for future releases. The .NET Engineering Services team has recently merged a change into Maestro which disables the “darc-int” NuGet sources by default. Therefore, a public build of a repo will “assume” any internal source is not required (which is true after release day), while internal builds will automatically enable those sources. Going forward, this should ensure that commits tagged for release are always buildable without source modification on the day of release.

Prep and Validation

After we have a coherent product with all desired fixes, we run it through an Azure DevOps pipeline which handles preparing a full product drop and handoff for additional validation. We utilize Maestro in an interesting way to do this. Starting at dotnet/installer, Maestro traverses the dependency graph starting at the dotnet/installer commit that we wish to ship and finds every unreleased dependency that contributes to that graph. It then locates all individual repo builds associated with those dependencies and the full set of Microsoft CI assets produced by those builds. Each of these assets has a set of endpoints associated with them, which is updated upon publishing. Maestro locates and downloads all the assets, placing them in a directory that is ready to be validated and released.

Our additional prep and validation is wide ranging, but includes activities such as:

  • NuGet package consistency checks.
  • Signing checks.
  • Insertion .NET into Visual Studio and Visual Studio for Mac for release via those deployment systems.
  • Verification that bugs expected to be fixed in the release are resolved.

Bugs or issues found in this stage are evaluated for severity and changes are made in the appropriate product repos if necessary. Otherwise, on to release!


Release day is largely about pushing the new product build to various endpoints (e.g. https://dot.nethttps://nuget.org, docker registries, etc.) and publishing release notes and blog posts. GitHub repos are tagged at the commit that was built for release (e.g. dotnet/runtime preview 7 tag), and if the release was built internally to address a security issue, the internal/release/... branches are merged back into the corresponding public GitHub branches.

In dotnet/source-build, the released .NET source code goes through the public PR process. This ensures the dotnet/source-build infrastructure can build .NET from source, from the same exact commits, without access to internal Microsoft assets. After applying any source-build-specific fixes and merging the PR, dotnet/source-build is tagged for that release.

…And on to the next cycle!

After release is done, we begin prep for the next one by updating ‘branding’ in each repo (updating the version numbers to match the targets for the next release). Then bug fixes are merged and the process of building and shipping the product starts over again.


Discussion is closed. Login to edit/delete existing comments.

  • Halil İbrahim Kalkan 0

    Thank you for sharing your internal work here, which is very interesting.
    I read it overally for now, but I will read all carefully.

  • Abhi Shek 0

    Your team is at a point where is shipping is more complicated than building a ship itself.

    • Matt MitchellMicrosoft employee 0

      Hah, you’re not entirely wrong.

      This was a big reason for some of the repo consolidation work done in .NET 5. The size of the dependency flow graph correlates to the time it takes to produce a build, difficulty in understanding the graph etc. A lot of the technology was invented to simply deal with this problem.

      One question you might ask is: Why not have a mono repo? A mono repo, which would basically include everything that is tightly integrated and ships on the same cadence, would eliminate a bunch of the problems building and shipping. No or limited dependency flow, a single commit represents the product, etc.

      But it’s a ‘goldilocks’ problem. There is a “right” number of repos at a given point in time, based on a wide variety of input factors. Small repos tend to have shorter dev inner-loops, which are especially important to external communities. The wpf and winforms folks don’t want to build the .NET Core runtime. Monolithic repos introduce additional challenges around issue management. GitHub has an issue management system that works great for small communities, but wouldn’t scale well to a repo that would include all of .NET.

  • Tristan Barcelon 0

    Matt, is it possible to host Maestro ++ ourselves to solve similar dependency requirements we have in our app? If so, where do we begin? How do we onboard our .net core projects and does it work with non-dotnet core repos? Thanks.

    • Matt MitchellMicrosoft employee 0

      The short answer is….probably, but I don’t think it’s been tried and there are probably some tweaks needed.

      Maestro is designed to be fairly generic. It’s built on service fabric and doesn’t generally care about how or where builds come from. The REST API that we use to interact with it (upload builds, query artifacts, etc.) doesn’t know much about .NET. It’s really about gathering names of things and updating them in downstream repos. It should be possible to deploy it for other purposes.

      We have this doc, which is mostly applicable https://github.com/dotnet/arcade/blob/master/Documentation/DependencyFlowOnboarding.md

      That said, it’s probably not exactly plug and play out of the box:
      – The process we use to upload builds to Maestro today (which is an msbuild task that calls the REST API). That could be used, though if you aren’t using msbuild then you’d need to call the REST api manually
      – The service does have some built in assumptions about the mirroring of repos. For instance, when a new build is uploaded, if the repo is an AzDO variant, it will compute the corresponding github repo and and find out whether the sha exists publicly.
      – The configuration around permissions (the github dotnet/arcade-contrib team), names of secrets in KeyVaults, etc. are coded into the sources today. Those would need to be updated to suit your needs.
      – ??? Because we haven’t used it outside of the .NET team, there are probably additional assumptions that have become built in over time.

      It does run locally today by installing the service fabric SDK on a dev machine. These are the instructions we use today:


      @Michel Bagnol Ultimately, I see an opportunity for a more polished service that has an easier onboarding process for most user’s needs. I think most customers modular .NET ecosystems are a little more constrained than ours. We deal in a wide variety of assets that need to be tracked and updated (zip files, msis). We redistribute outputs quite a lot. We have zillions of package references, intermediate output downloads, etc. sprinkled throughout the build process.

      But I imagine a service which would encode more understanding of the typical projects like .NET. Combine a more polished service with some extensibility points with an onboarding process which could run through your solutions, find the package references, annotate them with necessary metadata, and track+update them natively (rather than side-car files). This could certainly be something that would integrate well with a CI system.

      • Tristan Barcelon 0

        Thank you Matt! Time to give this one a whirl.

  • Michel Bagnol 0

    Hi Matt, thanks for sharing !

    As I have multiple teams building modular frameworks, we encountered the same need for “Dependency flow” (which I called “cascade builds”), and it looks like we’re not alone with the same needs to automate this.
    Not finding a support for this in DevOps tools we have build parts of a similar solution, but not yet complete.

    [QUESTION] Can we dream of having the Meastro service bundled with Azure DevOps ? That would be really great !

    • Matt MitchellMicrosoft employee 0

      I think I answered your question in the post above. Let me know!

  • Roberto Collina 0

    These posts are great, the insights are extremely valuable for similar in-house scenarios – thank you.

    If I may, would you please consider writing a post regarding package dependency management as well?
    I tried to outline the issue here: https://github.com/dotnet/extensions/issues/3268

    Thank you again for these great posts.

    • Matt MitchellMicrosoft employee 0

      I’ll look into getting that question answered.

Feedback usabilla icon