But, would the idea be to have a M1.1 release or a Certs branch with the latest?

What if something needs to be changed to M1.1 after the fact, but it's 
essentially frozen/deprecated?  (ie. Bug fix, a WS standard changes, .NET 4.0 
release)

-Ben Dewey



-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 12:23 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Suggestion: mutual certificates viz 3rd party identity

I agree that it would be good to have a M1 (or whatever it is called) that has 
the latest greatest stuff - but does NOT have STS.

Regards,
H

Scott Golightly wrote:
> It is my intention that we continue to use the configuration system
> (although when I started to incorporate it the feature wasn't complete and I
> ran into some problems). I am getting back around to looking at the
> configuration system. 
> I also see the advantage of a release that has the current changes without
> the need for a STS. This would give a stable implementation of the
> configuration system without having to use token based security. 
> 
> Scott Golightly
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drew Baird [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:14 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Suggestion: mutual certificates viz 3rd party identity
> 
> We need an M1.5 that has all the good stuff Ben and Avantika have added
> before we move on to Claim/Metro et al
> 
> My two cents.
> Drew
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Ben Dewey <[email protected]>
> To: "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 8:53:18 PM
> Subject: RE: Suggestion: mutual certificates viz 3rd party identity
> 
> I'm not sure if I completely understand you guys, but I'm a little bit
> concerned that if we freeze M1 as our "Certificate" version we'll be missing
> out on all the recent configuration changes and the contributions from
> Metro.
> 
> Will this technique still allow for these new features to be used?
> 
> I know it may be taboo, but would branching the code be an option.  
> 
> 
> -Ben Dewey


Reply via email to