CF v239 - Githubissues

ghost commented 8 years ago

cf-release Release Candidate SHA for v239: dd9baab45932eda757a44d6e6b4e9687329201e9

Please read these instructions, as they changed on 4 Nov 2015.

Edit this comment by setting the approval for your section (delete the thumb you don't want)
Also set your GitHub handle as the approver
Add any additional comments you may have in your section
If you notice you are the last person to set your approval, as a courtesy please also add a new comment to the issue saying so, so that we get GitHub notifications that all approvals are done.

@Amit-PivotalLabs, @JesseTAlford: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the release integration team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?

Approval: :+1: / :-1:
Decider:
Comments:

@Amit-PivotalLabs, @zankich: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the infrastructure team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?

Approval: :+1: / :-1:
Decider:
Comments:

@shalako, @crhino: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the routing team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?

Approval: :+1: / :-1:
Decider:
Comments:

@sreetummidi, @mbhave: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the identity team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?

Approval: :+1: / :-1:
Decider:
Comments:

@Jim-Campbell, @wfernandes: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the Loggregator team? Do the a1 logging metrics look nominal? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?

Approval: :-1:
Decider: @wfernandes
Comments: Unfortunately, a bug was introduced in the parsing of the doppler.json.erb template in this commit when specifying blacklisted_syslog_ranges. We are working on a fix.

@SocalNick, @utako: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the CAPI team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?

Approval: :+1: / :-1:
Decider:
Comments:

@Dannyzen, @RochesterinNYC: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the Buildpacks and Stacks team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?

Approval: :+1:
Decider: @dannyzen
Comments:

@nebhale, @cgfrost: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the Java Buildpack team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?

Approval: :+1:
Decider: @nebhale
Comments: v3.8

@ematpl, @jfmyers9: Can you provide a compatible diego-release SHA?

Approval: :+1:
Decider: @ematpl
Comments: Diego 0.1479.0 / GL 0.339.0 / etcd 58 / cflinuxfs2 1.18.0 are compatible.

@fraenkel, @sykesm: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the DEA + HM9000 team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?

Approval: :+1: / :-1:
Decider:
Comments:

ghost commented 8 years ago

cf-release Release Candidate SHA for v239: 2eb35c0770e9a8b7583a66bc830e1db0c0115903

Please read these instructions, as they changed on 4 Nov 2015.

Edit this comment by setting the approval for your section (delete the thumb you don't want)
Also set your GitHub handle as the approver
Add any additional comments you may have in your section
If you notice you are the last person to set your approval, as a courtesy please also add a new comment to the issue saying so, so that we get GitHub notifications that all approvals are done.

@Amit-PivotalLabs, @JesseTAlford: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the release integration team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?

Approval: :+1: / :-1:
Decider:
Comments:

@Amit-PivotalLabs, @zankich: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the infrastructure team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?

Approval: :+1: / :-1:
Decider:
Comments:

@shalako, @crhino: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the routing team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?

Approval: :+1: / :-1:
Decider:
Comments:

@sreetummidi, @mbhave: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the identity team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?

Approval: :+1:
Decider: Sree
Comments: No Changes

@Jim-Campbell, @wfernandes, @jasonkeene: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the Loggregator team? Do the a1 logging metrics look nominal? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?

Approval: :+1:
Decider: Jim
Comments:

@SocalNick, @utako: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the CAPI team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?

Approval: :+1:
Decider: @SocalNick
Comments:

@Dannyzen, @RochesterinNYC: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the Buildpacks and Stacks team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?

Approval: :+1: / :-1:
Decider:
Comments:

@nebhale, @cgfrost: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the Java Buildpack team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?

Approval: :-1:
Decider: @nebhale
Comments: The buildpacks submodule does not point at the latest commit, meaning that the versions of the online and offline buildpacks are different.

@ematpl, @jfmyers9: Can you provide a compatible diego-release SHA?

Approval: :+1: / :-1:
Decider:
Comments:

@fraenkel, @sykesm: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the DEA + HM9000 team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?

Approval: :+1: / :-1:
Decider:
Comments:

Amit-PivotalLabs commented 8 years ago

@nebhale @cgfrost @Dannyzen @RochesterinNYC can we get a fix for the buildpacks submodule?

nebhale commented 8 years ago

@Amit-PivotalLabs Working on it now. I'll update with a new hash once we're ready.

nebhale commented 8 years ago

@Amit-PivotalLabs 25f619001006e3297cdf3bf4dd8a5bcf940796e8 is a good candidate from the Java Buildpack perspective.

ghost commented 8 years ago

cf-release Release Candidate SHA for v239: e53f998d767b5a09a43c87435fb655a6411f76db

Please read these instructions, as they changed on 4 Nov 2015.

Edit this comment by setting the approval for your section (delete the thumb you don't want)
Also set your GitHub handle as the approver
Add any additional comments you may have in your section
If you notice you are the last person to set your approval, as a courtesy please also add a new comment to the issue saying so, so that we get GitHub notifications that all approvals are done.

@Amit-PivotalLabs, @JesseTAlford: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the release integration team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?

Approval: :+1:
Decider: @Amit-PivotalLabs
Comments: N/A

@Amit-PivotalLabs, @zankich: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the infrastructure team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?

Approval: :+1:
Decider: @Amit-PivotalLabs
Comments: Postgres no longer runs as root

@shalako, @crhino: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the routing team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?

Approval: :+1:
Decider: @crhino
Comments: Includes GoRouter fix to syslog bug, now correctly sends log data through syslog.

@sreetummidi, @mbhave: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the identity team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?

Approval: :+1:
Decider: Sree
Comments: No Changes

@Jim-Campbell, @wfernandes, @jasonkeene: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the Loggregator team? Do the a1 logging metrics look nominal? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?

Approval: :+1:
Decider:Jim
Comments:

@SocalNick, @utako: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the CAPI team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?

Approval: :+1:
Decider: @SocalNick
Comments:

@Dannyzen, @RochesterinNYC: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the Buildpacks and Stacks team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?

Approval: :+1:
Decider: @dannyzen
Comments:

@nebhale, @cgfrost: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the Java Buildpack team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?

Approval: :+1:
Decider: @nebhale
Comments: v3.8.1

@ematpl, @jfmyers9: Can you provide a compatible diego-release SHA?

Approval: :+1:
Decider: @ematpl
Comments: Diego 0.1480.0 / GL 0.339.0 / etcd 60 / cflinuxfs2 1.18.0 are compatible.

@fraenkel, @sykesm: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the DEA + HM9000 team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?

Approval: :+1:
Decider: @fraenkel
Comments:

absoludicrous commented 8 years ago

@sreetummidi @mbhave @nebhale @cgfrost @Dannyzen @RochesterinNYC

Howdy - we're waiting for a few more 👍's - please add yours if you are comfortable with 239 in its current state

sreetummidi commented 8 years ago

@absoludicrous Updated

Dannyzen commented 8 years ago

@absoludicrous updated

Amit-PivotalLabs commented 8 years ago

@Dannyzen @sreetummidi @nebhale looks like all thumbs up have been given several hours ago. Friendly reminder to please note the instruction:

If you notice you are the last person to set your approval, as a courtesy please also add a new comment to the issue saying so, so that we get GitHub notifications that all approvals are done.

Since I'm not constantly watching this webpage I rely on the last person to thumbs up to explicitly comment that all approvals are done ("updated" doesn't communicate to me that everyone else is done).

Amit-PivotalLabs commented 8 years ago

$ git push origin e53f998d767b5a09a43c87435fb655a6411f76db:release-elect
Total 0 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0)
To git@github.com:cloudfoundry/cf-release
   67fa6ab..e53f998  e53f998d767b5a09a43c87435fb655a6411f76db -> release-elect

Amit-PivotalLabs commented 8 years ago

Final release build in progress: https://runtime.ci.cf-app.com/pipelines/cf-release-final/jobs/create-final-release/builds/18

Amit-PivotalLabs commented 8 years ago

Final release commit: https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-release/commit/8da019e837edd07791b8d2ec20e7294a17e76f83
Final release on bosh.io: http://bosh.io/releases/github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-release?version=239

cloudfoundry-attic / cf-final-release-election

CF v239 #11