Adding os.build_id resource attribute and discussion why os.sdk.version isn't required

[surbhiia]

Note: I've preserved the conversation as it went and not editing my this comment. But the only change done in this PR was adding os.build_id resource attribute. And we discussed in detail why os.sdk.version is not required to be in os.yaml

##Changes
Following changes have been done in os.yaml and os.md

• Added os.build attribute
• Added os.sdk_version attribute

Rationale behind the proposal:

os.build
Currently, os.version is available to add the complete version number along with build numbers. As the syntax of build numbers is different across different platforms it becomes difficult to parse the os.version attribute to extract the build number. Also for platforms like android where there can be multiple different manufacturers, build numbers can be defined differently. Google has also changed it's syntax for android build numbers from what it was earlier.

In last two week's client sig meetings where there was representation from the following platforms - Browser, iOS and Android, it was brought up, discussed and consensus was reached on the requirement of a separate attribute os.build to capture the build number.

Right now, iOS and Android are getting by this concern by adding build numbers to the os.description field:
IOS example: “iOS Version 16.4 (Build 20E247)”
Android example:

os.sdk_version
Additionally, there is no attribute to identify the SDK version (set of development tools & APIs used for development). It's not always 1 to 1 with the version number and is required to troubleshoot issues. Example - As seen here in android version number 12 can be associated with both API level 31 & 32.

Other things on the PR:

• I do not think I need to change schema-next.yaml for this change as it only allows attribute_rename under resource. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Merge requirement checklist

• CONTRIBUTING.md guidelines followed.
• CHANGELOG.md updated for non-trivial changes.
• schema-next.yaml updated with changes to existing conventions.

[joaopgrassi]

Please, adapt the PR title to reflect the fact only os.build is being added.

[surbhiia]

Please, adapt the PR title to reflect the fact only os.build is being added.

I thought of it but wanted to keep it so others can benefit from the discussion. I updated it to reflect what exactly it covers.

[surbhiia]

@jsuereth This is my first PR in this repo and I'm not sure if I'm missing any last steps here. Is there anything I need to do next to get this pull request merged? I did resolve conflicts in changelog.md previously but I guess that'll keep happening everyday until this PR is merged. I'm not sure if I should do that everyday?