again this is on our CF deployment broker is also ours .. and app is also ours not on PWS wrote:

Thanks for trying John .. I dont think its broker issue .. or can it be .. it may be app issue but broker is presenting right credentials .. but this is intermittent .. I was wondering is there

I can't reproduce this. After restaging, the app no longer has service instance 1's environment variables. Which service broker is this? Could this be a bug in your service broker where it's reusing

team, we are having a unique issue of service credentials still available to application even after unbind and restage of application.. we looked at the app it is not storing creds anywhere .. this

Hi, all, When the Diego team creates its next final version of diego-release, v0.1488.0, it will no longer support or function correctly with garden-linux. In addition to the work already in flight

Hi John, Unfortunately memory usage inside containers is a bit of a painful topic. I've linked to a really great blog by Heroku on this topic below that goes in to more detail but tl;dr there's not a

folks , any insight ?

Hi Nick, Thanks for you reply. able to assign a space to have access to an Isolation Segment where the “private” stack is available. Other spaces, while able to see the “private” stack with

This is super cool! Thanks Brian ___________________________ Brian Roche Senior Director of Software Engineering Dell EMC | Cloud Platform Team mobile 781 727 7337 follow me

+1 - Can't wait. This looks like it will be a nice step forward for build packs! Dan

If they've read the High Availability CloudFoundry.org page <https://docs.cloudfoundry.org/concepts/high-availability.html> before making a decision, then they reasonably could be. If BOSH is not

Hi, Thanks it is working for me know - don't know the exact reason - but I re-deployed CF and then it start working for me for diego. Still do not sure why that was happening - possibility

Per Aaron’s and few other comments: … ... *Long Answer: *I agree that BOSH can be better, as can all software ;-). However, the certification process for offerings isn't about experimentation in

In line: wrote: Good questions! "Core CF" - This really isn't a defined term. In the proposal (which I wrote the initial draft of), I was using the term to basically mean that we can think of the

Per Aaron’s Comments: … ... <https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/archives/list/cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org/thread/BEBH4XXRVEP54F5VR5TGXXVUEA5YEPPK/#> *Long Answer: *I agree that BOSH can be

Certainly! I didn't mean to close it down on anyone... keep them coming. -- Chip Childers CTO, Cloud Foundry Foundation 1.267.250.0815

Thanks Chip. I've let the ContainerCF guys know that they should look at this. If we can keep the discussion open a little longer, we may hear from them. TT

One more From Hewlett Packard Enterprise point of view, we do not believe it is in the best interest of the Cloud Foundry project or the Cloud Foundry community to have a single, mandatory deployment

wrote: Timing is always the challenge with anything like this. ;-) If feels that this conversation has died down here on the list now. Hearing multiple perspectives has been really useful. To all

I love it! I can also see how this feature will pair nicely with process types support in v3. Nice proposal! Mike