JonG

My feedback

  1. 5,506 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    216 comments  ·  Storage » Files  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Thanks for the feedback! We are interested in collecting feedback on this request – please vote for it if this is something you like to see.

    We’re also interested in learning more what people want to use the SFTP/FTPS for and which protocol they prefer. Please feel free to leave us a comment letting us know more detail!

    Thanks,

    Will Gries
    Program Manager, Azure Files

    JonG supported this idea  · 
  2. 1,805 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    397 comments  ·  Azure Active Directory » SaaS Applications  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    We’re currently evaluating an option that will provide the functionality offered by nested groups, but removes the complexity nested groups adds. We appreciate your patience on this ask and want to ensure we deliver a solution that benefits all of our customers. Below are use cases that we’d like for you to stack rank, with #1 being priority for you. We thank you for the continued comments and feedback.

    Use case A: nested group in a cloud security group inherits apps assignment
    Use case B: nested group in a cloud security group inherits license assignment
    Use case C: nesting groups under Office 365 groups

    JonG supported this idea  · 
  3. 117 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    With the release of Azure Functions 2.0, the previously posted template no longer works.

    However, we recognize the need for this request, and are actively scoping and prioritizing the work needed to make it happen.

    I am very interested in speaking with anyone who needs this feature to learn more about your scenarios, particularly any information around cost issues. If you would like to help me scope this feature, please reach out: mogrobin@microsoft.com.

    Morgan Grobin
    4/26/2019

    JonG supported this idea  · 
  4. 51 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    8 comments  ·  Azure Monitor- Alert Management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    JonG supported this idea  · 
  5. 44 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    planned  ·  2 comments  ·  Additional Services » App Insights  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    JonG supported this idea  · 
  6. 415 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    8 comments  ·  Cloud Services (Web and Worker Role)  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    JonG commented  · 

    In any proper SDLC, the Development, QA, PerformanceLab and Prod subscriptions would properly NOT have the same instance size (small in Dev, small or Medium in QA, and larger in Perf and Prod); if for no other reason than pre-production cost savings (not a trivial thing with many teams, projects, etc). The fact that changing the instance size for Cloud Services can only currently be accomplished by unpacking and repacking the CSPack file at deploy time is, for lack of a better term, functional broken. In addition to requiring custom pre-deployment scripts and utilities to accomplish this modification, it also means the package being deployed to different environments will actually be different (dissimilar MD5 hashes for deployed packages within the same SDLC); which, regardless of the subtleness of the change, this is unacceptable in many companies.

  7. 1,170 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    36 comments  ·  Cloud Services (Web and Worker Role)  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    JonG supported this idea  · 
  8. 71 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    8 comments  ·  Azure Resource Manager  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    This is something we’re thinking about, but would like to ensure that we’re providing a sufficiently robust set of capabilities within the template language syntax itself.

    What scenarios are “overly complicated and hard to maintain”? This will help us understand where we need to invest.

    JonG supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base