Re: The V7 CF CLI is now GA!
Shannon Coen <scoen@...>
It's been a long road. Congratulations on getting to GA!
Manager, Product Management scoen@... 875 Howard Street 5th Floor, San Francisco CA 94103 Mobile: +1.415.640.0272 From: cf-dev@... <cf-dev@...> on behalf of Dr Nic Williams <drnicwilliams@...>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 3:43 PM To: cf-dev@... <cf-dev@...> Subject: Re: [cf-dev] The V7 CF CLI is now GA! Congrats to the team past and present!
Nic
On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 8:42 am, Josh Collins <collinsjo@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: The V7 CF CLI is now GA!
Krannich, Bernd
Congrats to everybody involved!
Regards, Bernd
From: <cf-dev@...> on behalf of Dieu Cao <dieuc@...>
Congrats! Huge milestone and awesome effort from everyone involved!
-Dieu From: cf-dev@... <cf-dev@...> on behalf of Dr Nic Williams via lists.cloudfoundry.org <drnicwilliams=gmail.com@...>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 3:43 PM To: cf-dev@... <cf-dev@...> Subject: Re: [cf-dev] The V7 CF CLI is now GA!
Congrats to the team past and present!
Nic
On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 8:42 am, Josh Collins <collinsjo@...> wrote:
-- |
|
Re: The V7 CF CLI is now GA!
Dieu Cao
Congrats! Huge milestone and awesome effort from everyone involved!
-Dieu
From: cf-dev@... <cf-dev@...> on behalf of Dr Nic Williams via lists.cloudfoundry.org <drnicwilliams=gmail.com@...>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 3:43 PM To: cf-dev@... <cf-dev@...> Subject: Re: [cf-dev] The V7 CF CLI is now GA! Congrats to the team past and present!
Nic
On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 8:42 am, Josh Collins <collinsjo@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: The V7 CF CLI is now GA!
Dr Nic Williams <drnicwilliams@...>
Congrats to the team past and present! Nic On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 8:42 am, Josh Collins <collinsjo@...> wrote:
--
|
|
The V7 CF CLI is now GA!
Josh Collins
Good morning, good afternoon, good evening & happy Friday to you all,
The cf CLI team GA'd the v7 CF CLI yesterday in the late afternoon.
We're simultaneously excited, relieved, and exhausted by our efforts over the last couple months and we invite you to join us as we take (v)7 deep breaths to rightly mark this occasion.
Please see
the release notes for details.
And as always, we really would
love to hear from you so please feel free to respond to this email or find us in the Cloud Foundry Slack #cli channel
any time.
Because this is kind of a big deal, some acknowledgements are in order...
We wouldn't be here without dedicated users and contributors; all your feedback, your issues, your pull requests and your valuable time taken to help us gain insight into what matters most. Your engagement has been invaluable. And we look forward to our continued work and collaboration in the future. Thank you! And it took a great deal of work from people on the cf CLI, V3 Acceleration and Services API teams (as well as many others) to deliver the new CLI. Based on a review of Git commits, we've put together a list of folks we'd like to acknowledge (if a name is missing, please know we appreciate you in spirit). Thank you all very much: Piyali Banerjee, Alexander Berezovsky, Alex Blease, George Blue, Seth Boyles, Connor Braa, Florian Braun, Winna Bridgewater, Andrew Brown, André Browne, Marcela Campo, Abby Chau, Renee Chu, Greg Cobb, Josh Collins, Emina Cosic, Andrew Crump, Brian Cunnie, Tim Downey, Derik Evangelista, Daniel Fein, Oleksii Fedorov, Weyman Fung, Anand Gaitonde, Jenna Goldstrich, Nick Guerette, Leah Hanson, Spencer Hawley, Michelle He, Chris Hendrix, Sannidhi Jalukar, Rob Jones, Mike Kenyon, Aarti Kriplani, Merric de Launey, Joao Lebre, Diego Lemos, Belinda Liu, Georgi Lozev, Will Martin, Felisia Martini, Niki Maslarski, Nikolay Maslarski, Andres Medina, Reid Mitchell, Mona Mohebbi, Magesh Murali Kumar, Will Murphy, Harsha Nandiwada, Supraja Narasimhan, Joseph Palermo, James Palmer, Will Pragnell, Eric Promislow, Zach Robinson, Luan Santos, Simon Seif, Chris Selzo, Alex Shan, Brendan Smith, Henry Stanley, Teal Stannard, Steve Taylor, Aditya Tripathi, Sebastian Vidrio, Thomas Viehman, Nicholas Webb, Sarah Weinstein, Eli Wrenn
Have a great weekend!
CF CLI and V3 Acceleration teams
|
|
Re: Proposal to Rename the Primary Branch on all Cloud Foundry repos
Jesse Alford <jalford@...>
Changing branches breaks a lot of tooling, docs, and expectations.
If you're going to do it - which to be clear I think we should in this case -
it is better to move to what you'd prefer,
rather than make multiple such breaks.
I agree that `main` is a fine default and matches what Github will be migrating to.
If "default branch, plus whatever expectations you might bring with you about such a branch"
is what you want to communicate with your branch name, switch to `main`.
If "the place that active development should be pushed/merged to" and,
optionally,
"the place that deliberately released code should be pulled from"
is what you want to communicate, maybe use that pattern.
If you want to say something else with your branch names,
this is an opportunity to communicate.
Anyway. I support changes away from `master`,
but think we don't need to coordinate further on the matter.
From: cf-dev@... <cf-dev@...> on behalf of Josh Collins <collinsjo@...>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 9:58 AM To: Discussions about Cloud Foundry projects and the system overall. <cf-dev@...> Subject: Re: [cf-dev] Proposal to Rename the Primary Branch on all Cloud Foundry repos
I support this change.
Josh Collins - CF CLI PM
From: cf-dev@... <cf-dev@...> on behalf of Lee Porte via lists.cloudfoundry.org <lee.porte=digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk@...>
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 12:22 AM To: Discussions about Cloud Foundry projects and the system overall. <cf-dev@...> Subject: Re: [cf-dev] Proposal to Rename the Primary Branch on all Cloud Foundry repos Hi all,
I am also in support of this change after enquiring on slack.
Cheers
L
On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 at 23:06, Dieu Cao <dieuc@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: Proposal to Rename the Primary Branch on all Cloud Foundry repos
Josh Collins
I support this change.
Josh Collins - CF CLI PM
From: cf-dev@... <cf-dev@...> on behalf of Lee Porte via lists.cloudfoundry.org <lee.porte=digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk@...>
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 12:22 AM To: Discussions about Cloud Foundry projects and the system overall. <cf-dev@...> Subject: Re: [cf-dev] Proposal to Rename the Primary Branch on all Cloud Foundry repos Hi all,
I am also in support of this change after enquiring on slack.
Cheers
L
On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 at 23:06, Dieu Cao <dieuc@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: Proposal to Rename the Primary Branch on all Cloud Foundry repos
Daniel Jones
Cripes - by which I meant "any future branch name changes". Not any future code changes. That'd be a bit extreme. Regards, Daniel 'Deejay' Jones - CEO +44 (0)79 8000 9153 EngineerBetter Ltd - More than cloud platform specialists On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 15:20, Daniel Jones via lists.cloudfoundry.org <daniel.jones=engineerbetter.com@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: Proposal to Rename the Primary Branch on all Cloud Foundry repos
Daniel Jones
+1 for switching to "main", and for postponing any possible further changes until after that's done. Regards, Daniel 'Deejay' Jones - CEO +44 (0)79 8000 9153 EngineerBetter Ltd - More than cloud platform specialists On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 20:23, Troy Topnik <troy.topnik@...> wrote: I spoke to Jan Dubois about the 'main' vs. 'release' consideration, and he found this PR: |
|
Re: Proposal to Rename the Primary Branch on all Cloud Foundry repos
I spoke to Jan Dubois about the 'main' vs. 'release' consideration, and he found this PR:
https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/655 which indicates that the new default branch name for `git init` will be 'main' (if/when the PR is merged). This seems to be fairly strong argument to use 'main' as the default branch name. I'll raise this with the Extensions PMC project leads and recommend switching to 'main'. TT -- Troy Topnik
Senior Product Manager,
SUSE Cloud Application Platform
troy.topnik@...
|
|
Re: After Summit questions
Stephen Levine <slevine@...>
> in a BOSH world where CF jobs were running on the VM itself, as
opposed to “inside containers on a VM”, BOSH did indeed take care of that part [but then also there wasn’t the task to keep the container OS distro up-to-date – see #1]
In a way, BOSH did handle patching the container base images. When deploying a new
CF rootfs (e.g., cflinuxfs3), rolling the BOSH VMs would update the container base images for every app with security patches. New cell VMs would come up with a patched version of cflinuxfs3, then old ones would go down.
For CF4K8s, this will be handled by kpack, which uses CNB (buildpacks.io) image
rebasing functionality to swap the bottom OS layers of the deployed container images directly on the registry.
This results in the new container base images being distributed to each K8s node
exactly once per base image update, after the first rebased image is deployed.
Then all the other images deployed on the node will "snap around" to point at the
newly available base.
(This is a safe operation, because ABI compatibility is preserved when security
patches are applied to the new base images -- just like in the CF model.)
From: cf-dev@... <cf-dev@...> on behalf of Krannich, Bernd <bernd.krannich@...>
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 2:57 AM To: cf-dev@... <cf-dev@...> Subject: Re: [cf-dev] After Summit questions Hi Ross,
I haven’t tried Fargate myself (and I don’t know if this has been tried/is supported for CF on Kubernetes), but running CF on top of Kubernetes, “patching” might refer to two separate layers:
Hope this helps more than it creates confusion. I realize things have gotten more complex on this front and probably what I wrote can be explained in a more accessible way (my bad). 😉
Regards, Bernd
From:
<cf-dev@...> on behalf of "ross.kovelman via lists.cloudfoundry.org" <ross.kovelman=merck.com@...>
Hi all,After the first day of the summit, while very interesting, it left me and my teammates with a question. With no Bosh, since Bosh is for VMs, how will patching be done, especially when you use CF on a service like Fargate?
|
|
Re: Proposal to Rename the Primary Branch on all Cloud Foundry repos
Marco Voelz
Hi everyone,
I really appreciate this effort, thanks Dieu for bringing this up! From reading this thread I get the understanding that we're now already discussing what the best name for the bfkam (branch formally known as master) would be, given each team's specific interpretation and usage of that very branch.
While I'm all for discussions to reach a reasonable consensus, this already starts to look a lot like bikeshedding to me: We're talking about personal and team preferences, tailored to specific needs and usage. Given that for years noone bothered to look at the name more closely to consider renaming it to something different than 'master', I'm hoping that we can cut this discussion short and find a quick agreement on what the new name should be. Ideally across all CFF projects, at least within a PMC.
I'm voting +1 on 'main' for now, to reach this agreement more quickly. I'd be fine if any other name makes it as well, if that matters.
Thanks and warm regards Marco
From: <cf-dev@...> on behalf of Jan Dubois <JDubois@...>
I too agree with Jesse that in repos where you have `master` and `develop` branches, renaming `master` to `release` is more clear than using `main`.
For repos that have just a single trunk branch I have a slight personal preference for `latest`, as it mirrors the tag typically used to identify the latest build of a container image.
`main` also still has a connotation of being superior to the others (additional/auxiliary/supplemental/subordinate/???), which `latest` doesn't, imho.
"I've tested against the `latest` branch, and the issue is still reproducible" sounds descriptive to me.
Just using `develop` as the only branch could work too. E.g. UAA only uses `develop` and hasn't pushed to `master` since 2018, so you could just delete their `master` and nobody would notice... :)
Cheers, -Jan
|
|
Re: After Summit questions
Krannich, Bernd
Hi Ross,
I haven’t tried Fargate myself (and I don’t know if this has been tried/is supported for CF on Kubernetes), but running CF on top of Kubernetes, “patching” might refer to two separate layers:
Hope this helps more than it creates confusion. I realize things have gotten more complex on this front and probably what I wrote can be explained in a more accessible way (my bad). 😉
Regards, Bernd
From: <cf-dev@...> on behalf of "ross.kovelman via lists.cloudfoundry.org" <ross.kovelman=merck.com@...>
Hi all,After the first day of the summit, while very interesting, it left me and my teammates with a question. With no Bosh, since Bosh is for VMs, how will patching be done, especially when you use CF on a service like Fargate?
|
|
Re: Proposal to Rename the Primary Branch on all Cloud Foundry repos
Jan Dubois <JDubois@...>
I too agree with Jesse that in repos where you have `master` and `develop` branches, renaming `master` to `release` is more clear than using `main`.
For repos that have just a single trunk branch I have a slight personal preference for `latest`, as it mirrors the tag typically used to identify the latest build of a container image.
`main` also still has a connotation of being superior to the others (additional/auxiliary/supplemental/subordinate/???), which `latest` doesn't, imho.
"I've tested against the `latest` branch, and the issue is still reproducible" sounds descriptive to me.
Just using `develop` as the only branch could work too. E.g. UAA only uses `develop` and hasn't pushed to `master` since 2018, so you could just delete their `master` and nobody would notice... :)
Cheers,
-Jan
|
|
After Summit questions
ross.kovelman@...
Hi all,After the first day of the summit, while very interesting, it left me and my teammates with a question. With no Bosh, since Bosh is for VMs, how will patching be done, especially when you use CF on a service like Fargate? |
|
Re: Proposal to Rename the Primary Branch on all Cloud Foundry repos
Caroline Taymor <taymorc@...>
I agree with Jesse. Renaming from `master` is a great idea which I strongly support. `main` is similar but more inclusive, but perhaps we can take the opportunity to increase the semantic meaning of the branch names. Caroline
From: <cf-dev@...> on behalf of Jesse Alford <jalford@...>
Could we consider using `develop` (and/or, where appropriate, `release` and version-specific branches) instead?
In addition to being problematic, `master` is confusing, as it means different things in different processes.
`develop`/`release` makes it clear what branch you're supposed to push/merge to.
As an example, `cf-deployment` currently has `develop` and `master`, with `master` being effectively a release branch - all releases are ff-only merges tagged on `master` with a version number. `main` would be less clear than `release` in this case - and, I suspect, in many others. From: cf-dev@... <cf-dev@...> on behalf of Lee Porte via lists.cloudfoundry.org <lee.porte=digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk@...>
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 12:22 AM To: Discussions about Cloud Foundry projects and the system overall. <cf-dev@...> Subject: Re: [cf-dev] Proposal to Rename the Primary Branch on all Cloud Foundry repos
Hi all,
I am also in support of this change after enquiring on slack.
Cheers
L
On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 at 23:06, Dieu Cao <dieuc@...> wrote:
-- |
|
Re: Proposal to Rename the Primary Branch on all Cloud Foundry repos
Jesse Alford <jalford@...>
Could we consider using `develop` (and/or, where appropriate, `release` and version-specific branches) instead?
In addition to being problematic, `master` is confusing, as it means different things in different processes.
`develop`/`release` makes it clear what branch you're supposed to push/merge to.
As an example, `cf-deployment` currently has `develop` and `master`, with `master` being effectively a release branch - all releases are ff-only merges tagged on `master` with a version number. `main` would be less clear than `release` in this case - and, I
suspect, in many others.
From: cf-dev@... <cf-dev@...> on behalf of Lee Porte via lists.cloudfoundry.org <lee.porte=digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk@...>
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 12:22 AM To: Discussions about Cloud Foundry projects and the system overall. <cf-dev@...> Subject: Re: [cf-dev] Proposal to Rename the Primary Branch on all Cloud Foundry repos Hi all,
I am also in support of this change after enquiring on slack.
Cheers
L
On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 at 23:06, Dieu Cao <dieuc@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: Proposal to Rename the Primary Branch on all Cloud Foundry repos
Shannon Coen <scoen@...>
Speaking for the CF Networking team, we're supportive.
Manager, Product Management scoen@... 875 Howard Street 5th Floor, San Francisco CA 94103 Mobile: +1.415.640.0272 From: cf-dev@... <cf-dev@...> on behalf of Lee Porte via lists.cloudfoundry.org <lee.porte=digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk@...>
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 12:22 AM To: Discussions about Cloud Foundry projects and the system overall. <cf-dev@...> Subject: Re: [cf-dev] Proposal to Rename the Primary Branch on all Cloud Foundry repos Hi all,
I am also in support of this change after enquiring on slack.
Cheers
L
On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 at 23:06, Dieu Cao <dieuc@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: Proposal to Rename the Primary Branch on all Cloud Foundry repos
Lee Porte
Hi all, I am also in support of this change after enquiring on slack. Cheers L On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 at 23:06, Dieu Cao <dieuc@...> wrote:
--
|
|
Re: Proposal to retire the Perm project in the App Runtime PMC
Hi, everyone,
The App Runtime PMC approved the proposal to retire the Perm project at today's PMC meeting. The corresponding project repositories are now located in the CF attic; see https://github.com/cloudfoundry-attic?q=perm for
the full list.
Thanks,
Eric From: cf-dev@... <cf-dev@...> on behalf of Guillaume Berche via lists.cloudfoundry.org <bercheg=gmail.com@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 9:28 AM To: cf-dev <cf-dev@...> Subject: Re: [cf-dev] Proposal to retire the Perm project in the App Runtime PMC Hi Eric,
Thanks for the clarifications!
Regards,
Guillaume.
Le mar. 23 juin 2020 à 17:08, Eric Malm <emalm@...> a écrit :
|
|