Include Microsoft.Diagnostics.FastSerialization in the TraceEvent package

[sharwell]

Currently the Microsoft.Diagnostics.Tracing.TraceEvent assembly depends on Microsoft.Diagnostics.FastSerialization, but no dependency was added to the NuGet package. Rather than deal with separate NuGet packages at this time, this change simply includes the dependency in the original NuGet package.

📝 If we ever need to split these in the future, we can trivially do so and add a dependency from the current NuGet package to the new one without breaking upgrade scenarios. Since this makes distribution a little bit more complex (managing multiple NuGet releases from one repository) and didn't seem essential at this time, I chose the simplest route to packaging for my initial proposed approach.

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #273 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #273   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   24.35%   24.35%           
=======================================
  Files         197      197           
  Lines      112394   112394           
  Branches    11210    11210           
=======================================
  Hits        27373    27373           
  Misses      84994    84994           
  Partials       27       27

Flag	Coverage Δ
#2015	24.35% <ø> (ø)	⬆️
#2017	24.35% <ø> (ø)	⬆️
#Debug	15.81% <ø> (ø)	⬆️
#Release	14.9% <ø> (ø)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 3844164...78487b6. Read the comment docs.

[vancem]

This is reasonable, but I am mulling over whether we event want a separate DLL for the FastSerialization code (what makes this different from the other utility code that happens to be in TraceEvent.dll (e.g. PEFile ...). This was originally spit out to allow reuse by Visual Studio, but in retrospect, that was not a clear win. Hmm...

[sharwell]

@vancem If you aren't sure, we could file that as a follow-up issue to take on separately.

[vancem]

I have been mulling this too long. It is now blocking someone, and so we will do it this way and we can change it later as a separate issue.