Add windows-specific build instructions to readme

[benjaminwinger]

Added a short description of additional requirements for building on windows to the README (see #1736 (comment)).

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage has no change and project coverage change: -0.01 ⚠️

Comparison is base (5cd883c) 91.42% compared to head (715a9fd) 91.42%.

❗ Current head 715a9fd differs from pull request most recent head cc02b38. Consider uploading reports for the commit cc02b38 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1742      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.42%   91.42%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         766      766              
  Lines       27509    27509              
==========================================
- Hits        25151    25149       -2     
- Misses       2358     2360       +2     

see 1 file with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[benjaminwinger]

I amended the note about the visual studio build since just running make arrow won't also configure the main cmake build to use ninja. Actually building isn't necessary since visual studio will build in a separate directory, but it's the simplest way to do it at the moment, even if it's somewhat slow. I feel like further details like this about the build process could be helpful, but it would probably be better to have dedicated build documentation and keep the section in the readme short and simple.

[LowLevelMahn]

what "Windows" Make should be used for Windows?

the 2006 GnuWin32 Version: https://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages/make.htm
or from this project: https://github.com/mbuilov/gnumake-windows

Make is very uncommon on Windows so it would be good to state whats a good source for the binary

[benjaminwinger]

That version might work, depending on the differences between the versions. I don't think it's been tested with that old of a version of make.

What we've used in CI is the version packaged by chocolatey: https://community.chocolatey.org/packages/make. It looks like the person who packaged that is distributing the binaries themselves along with the package (the exe can be found here).

[LowLevelMahn]

What we've used in CI is the version packaged by chocolatey

could you add that info+url to the short build description?

[benjaminwinger]

could you add that info+url to the short build description?

Sure. Or rather, I updated it to link chocolatey and listed the package names in an example install command, since that also includes ninja and might be a little more straightforward than linking the chocolatey packages individually. Is that sufficient?

[LowLevelMahn]

could you add that info+url to the short build description?

Sure. Or rather, I updated it to link chocolatey and listed the package names in an example install command, since that also includes ninja and might be a little more straightforward than linking the chocolatey packages individually. Is that sufficient?

yes - seems to be more "complete" then