We all have unique perspectives that we offer each other, I appreciate the thoughts and time you've put into formulating this alternative. I've not spent enough to refute or agree with your proposal.

Layne, if you want to start with cloudfoundry-community then you can ask any existing member/owner to add you, or me if you don't know anyone else from the 160+ list. Send me/them your github ID. If

I respectfully disagree. Build pack binaries are nothing more than packages (just a different format than rpm or deb). Any competent Linux administrator should be familiar with package management

Spiff++ looks like a good idea. I've already tried it on my home projects. Are there any updates on your project? Do you plan to merge changes to commonly used spiff? ------------------------ Alex

Fair enough. Though if you divorce the binary from the buildpack you greatly increase the complexity of the environment. I think we can simplify this conversation a bit though using our *current*

Hi Layne, There are three main Cloud Foundry-related organizations in GitHub: cloudfoundry, cloudfoundry-incubator, and cloudfoundry-community. Each organization has many repositories. If there is

I don't think it wouldn't allow them to run arbitrary binaries, but it would allow them to run arbitrary build packs. If you divorce the binaries from the build pack, you can control the binaries

Thanks. This is helpful! I'd like get a better understanding of the following: Why would an operator set their environment to be disconnected from the internet if they wanted to enable their users to

See responses inline: I may be missing something but it was my understanding that buildpacks with binaries included must (unless checking all binaries into git) be added as admin buildpacks which non

* One of the key value propositions of a buildpack is the lightweight process to fork and customize a buildpack. *The inclusion of binaries makes buildpack customization a much heavier process and

Hi, depending on which buildpack you use it might be easier or more complicated to launch custom scripts at app runtime. In these scripts you can install apps, but only in "userspace" - that is, not

Hi, We're trying to fix Abacus issue 88: Missing aggregated usage for the running application [1]. Background ========= See the jsdelfino comment in the GitHub issue [2]. TL;DR: Resource providers

Hi, I found there are three repos related to Cloud Foundry in Github. And I prefers to contribute some projects to the Cloud Foundry Community one. So, whom I can contact? And what steps I should

i am working as an admin user on a deployment guided by azure mongodb release https://github.com/cloudfoundry-incubator/bosh-azure-cpi-release/tree/master/docs/advanced/deploy-mongodb Am stuck on a

Protobufs is smart. Given how we added the map, it should just work either way. -- Jim Campbell | Product Manager | Cloud Foundry | Pivotal.io | 303.618.0963

Hi Dies, I spoke with Eric and he explained that this could be the desired UX for a majority of the apps pushed with --no-route. There are more advanced deployment strategies that might set

I really like the idea of finding a way to move away from bundling binaries with the buildpacks while continuing to not require internet access. My organization actually doesn't even use the binary

Hello Ruben, We're currently adding support for quota management of route ports, as they can be a limited resource in some environments. This is particularly bad on AWS, where an ELB can be

Could we please, please not call it `cflinuxfs3`? A very common question I get is what is `cflinuxfs2` really? I then have to explain that it is basically Ubuntu Trusty. That invariably results in

You mention that this change is non-breaking for metrics users. I don't know much about protobufs backwards compatibility story. Can you detail a little more the implications from a compatibility