Hi There, Currently, the Node.js buildpack will assume that a user who has not explicitly defined a version of node.js in their package.json will want to use v0.12. As of April 2016 [1] the Node.js

Thanks Dieu, I don't have a problem with the change request. It just seems like an oddly specific change given the current not very well defined set of roles we have. I'd like to see a more clear

this is what it should look like (you must correctly indent your nameID, and other attributes so they conform to yaml) saml: assertionConsumerIndex: 0 nameID:

Deploy manifest contains: saml: assertionConsumerIndex: 0 nameID: urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.1:nameid-format:unspecified providers: okta-local-2: idpMetadata:

can you post what your result is. we frequently spiff XML from our yaml files with no issues.. an older example

Every time when the application stops with staging error, it gives below error: 2016-02-25T14:10:30.30+0530 [STG] ERR 2016-02-25T14:10:46.83+0530 [STG] OUT -----> Uploading

i'm also very interested in this, i hope you release a example soon so we can take a look at it and contribute :)

Something like custom roles and finer grained permissions is something we would like to look at in the future, but the CAPI team is currently focused on Tasks, v3, and soon Elastic Clusters, which

Hi Malmee, Typically, different cells will win different instances of your 5 tomcat servers, so you might have 5 different cells each running 1 tomcat server. This makes your application more

Hi, I try to deploy saml configuration for uaa during cf deployment. While the saml login server xml configuration looks ok in the deployment manifest, on the deployed uaa nodes, the

Hi, I am a newbie to Cloud Foundry as well as to PaaS. I have gone through Cloud Foundry documentation, but could not figure our this. If we want to deploy 5 tomcat servers in Cloud Foundry with

I guess it all depends on what you use CF for. I guess there’s a spectrum between: * Easy to use, developer-centric, company-internal environment: Make it as easy as possible to grant people

Agreed: the simple/hierarchical model of permissions is less flexible and composable. Having each roll have the permissions of the one "under" it plus a new layer limits the business rules this can be

So Bernd, it sounds like you would be against the change then that Dieu is proposing correct? I see your line of argument Bernd and could go with that. What I don't want to see is a gradual

Sorry for broadening the discussion but for us it’s the other way round for a similar use case: Having the CF admin role grants you developer rights in all orgs and spaces (for example, you could

This is a source of confusion for our end users as well. Users will have the space manager role, but not the space developer role, and fail when they first try to push an application.

For some history this is the last discussion I recall having on the subject: https://groups.google.com/a/cloudfoundry.org/d/msg/vcap-dev/8Owzq9pzDSs/FzKX60KBdAkJ Mike

I'm glad to see this question. Why does a space manager role not include all space developer permissions?

The CF CLI team just cut 6.16.1. Binaries and link to release notes are available at: https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cli#downloads Regression in cf ssh-code command Recently released cf CLI

Hi All, On behalf of the entire Identity team I am pleased to announce the release of UAA 3.1.0 <https://github.com/cloudfoundry/uaa/releases/tag/3.1.0> The UAA bosh release based on this version can