> But this makes me realize that I should probably be working against a pre-2.0 branch. Is there another release of 1.4.x planned at all, > or is it entirely 1.5.x from here on out? Also, can I assume that in svn that > "branches/1.4.x-fixes" and "branches/1.5.x-fixes" are the appropriate ones to work against respectively?
Ideally you would submit a patch for trunk, when I could then backmerge. It doesn't really matter which branch you work off though. Yes more 1.4.x releases are planned, and yes those branches are the correct branches for 1.4.x and 1.5.x. > I guess another question is: for which Santuario release would the new signature 1.1 KeyInfo elements be appropriate to include? In general, the 1.4.x branch is only for bug fixes rather than new features. 1.5.x will take new features so long as they don't break backwards compatibility. If you have a strong case to have the new functionality work in 1.4.x then I'll consider it. > As far as timing, I can definitely have this patch done in the next few weeks for 1.5.3 if that is appropriate (in fact hopefully by the end > of this week). Ok great. Colm. On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:33 PM, Brent Putman <[email protected]>wrote: > > On 9/4/12 12:27 PM, Cantor, Scott wrote: > > > > An OpenSAML developer is working on KeyInfo extensions for XML Sig 1.1 > > support, but I don't know if he's looking at 1.5 or 1.4 (we're currently > > on 1.4 in our old code base). I'll ask. It would be good if we could get > > them into a release certainly. > > > > > Good question. I had actually been working on a patch against the trunk > (which currently carries POM version 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT). But this makes me > realize that I should probably be working against a pre-2.0 branch. Is > there another release of 1.4.x planned at all, or is it entirely 1.5.x > from here on out? Also, can I assume that in svn that > "branches/1.4.x-fixes" and "branches/1.5.x-fixes" are the appropriate > ones to work against respectively? > > I guess another question is: for which Santuario release would the new > signature 1.1 KeyInfo elements be appropriate to include? For the > record, what Scott asked me to look into was support for the following > new 1.1 elements: > > X509Digest > DEREncodedKeyValue > KeyInfoReference > > Would a "new feature" like this be appropriate for a patch release like > 1.5.3? I don't know what the Santuario versioning policy is in this > respect. > > As far as timing, I can definitely have this patch done in the next few > weeks for 1.5.3 if that is appropriate (in fact hopefully by the end of > this week). > > --Brent > > > > -- Colm O hEigeartaigh Talend Community Coder http://coders.talend.com
