Hello All, Simon Moser, the Project Lead for the Bits-Service team within the Application Runtime PMC, is rotating into a different role within IBM. We thank him for his time serving as the

Use case: I want v1-stable to receive 5 times more traffic than each individual upgrade version I deploy Phase 1: Deploy alpha 1 Proposed (sum MUST add up to a 100): v1-stable: 83 v2-alpha1:

I’m going to agree with Marco’s concerns here. Making life harder and less stable for the end users of CF has a real potential to alienate and push away the CF userbase altogether, even if it’s

Hi Arghya, You have mentioned in Github that you were able to overcome this issue. For everyone else, here is the context and a bit more information. History In very early CFCR days, we did not

Dear Josh, Thanks for the context, I wasn't aware of what happened before the release of networking 2.0. To stick with your example, though: From what you are saying I have understood that you would

aaarrgh, there is a bug in my psuedo code clusterWeight = [v1,v1,v1,v1,v1,v1,v2,v2,v2,v3,v3] should be clusterWeight = [v1,v1,v1,v1,v1,v1,v2,v2,v2,v3,v4] Full solution: Implementation: "Randomized

I put a long comment in the doc, maybe comments are good for short notes. here is the spiel "The sum of weights must add to 100" I would say this is where being user friendly ends. If I add reviews-v4

The CF Routing team has received feedback from many users that support for weighted routing would make it easier to accomplish their goals. We have a proposal on the preferred user experience for

Hi Marco, I'm happy to provide more context on the container networking 2.0 reference. The container networking team submitted a PR to cf-deployment with changes required for them to ship v2.0.

That issue could be addressed by having CFCR use a different router group, which is part of the solution we have proposed here:

Also: I suspect that the CFCR route-sync feature has a dangerous interaction with CFAR Cloud Controller, if both CFCR and CFAR are sharing a TCP Routing API. CFAR Cloud Controller creates and uses a

Hi Oleksandr, What alternative do we have if we want to use kubectl with tls Thanks, Arghya

Hi, cf-dev Almost one year ago CFCR has added the ability to expose applications using CFAR gorouter. This was an experiment. We haven't added any changes to this feature for one year and plan to

Hi cf-dev- Here is a feature narrative. The feature narrative is called "Let's Fix CPU Sharing and Metrics in CF" (but actually it's just a proposal to make them quite a lot better). More information

Thank you for submitting this proposal. Let's shoot for collecting and resolving most of the comments in the next month by Aug 10th and voting at that time to incubate it in BOSH PMC.

Hi, all, It’s been about one month since this proposal has been submitted. I don’t see any pending unresolved issues or comments. Therefore, according to our process [0] and Nima’s request to

Dear Josh, You are correct, in the past the RelInt team hasn't provided security releases. Instead, the credo was to go forward with the regular releases to also get the newest security fixes.

FYI... Please remember to join the Zoom call [0] Wednesday July 18th at 8a Pacific for QAs, highlights, and two presentations: 1. Project Shield v8 Updates by James Hunt of Stark & Wayne [1] 2.

Hi there, Thank you for the feedback! Unfortunately it's not currently possible to customize the existing roles or add new roles to the system. However, we (the CF Permissions team) are working on

The Release Integration team hasn't provided security releases in the past -- for neither cf-release nor cf-deployment -- and doing so would be burdensome and impede the evolution of cf-deployment.