Re: Default VM Image

2017-01-31 Thread Duncan Grant
All, I've create a PR to make this change https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-server/pull/544 Could someone please review it. thanks Duncan On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 at 17:32 Aled Sage wrote: > +1 > > I don't know of anyone who would be negatively impacted by the defaults >

Re: Default VM Image

2017-01-19 Thread Aled Sage
+1 I don't know of anyone who would be negatively impacted by the defaults changing from ubuntu to centos. --- Switching from ubuntu 14.04 to 16.04 as the default ubuntu might well break some blueprints though (as I've seen examples that just use `osFamily: ubuntu`, without an explicit

Re: Default VM Image

2017-01-19 Thread Guglielmo Nigri
Agree with Mark McKenna's proposal to make it configurable. No strong opinion on what the default value should be, though. Maybe Ubuntu 14.04, for compatibility with blueprints that assume Ubuntu. Any examples of those in the wild? Guglielmo Nigri Senior Engineer @ Cloudsoft Corporation On 19

Re: Default VM Image

2017-01-19 Thread Richard Downer
Duncan, Do we have any data on what our users are using? That should be our driver for change :-) I am a bit concerned what effect making this change would have on existing blueprints that don't specify an OS requirement. If a user writes such a blueprint and makes it Ubuntu-dependent, would a

Re: Default VM Image

2017-01-19 Thread Geoff Macartney
Makes sense I guess; there have been some issues with Ubuntu 16.04 (at least with Vagrant) so Centos as default might be better than Ubuntu 16? On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 at 15:37 Aleksandr Vasilev < aleksandr.vasi...@cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote: > I'm in favor of adding Ubuntu 16.04 and CentOS 7 with

Re: Default VM Image

2017-01-19 Thread Aleksandr Vasilev
I'm in favor of adding Ubuntu 16.04 and CentOS 7 with score setting higher than previous versions. Best Regards, Aleksandr Vasilev DevOps Engineer | Cloudsoft Corporation On 20 January 2017 at 00:17, Duncan Godwin wrote: > Hi All, > > Should we change the