CF v250

[ghost]

cf-release Release Candidate SHA for v250: 7c126228623b54f4a762fbb1f9f758f7f709b3a4

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.

---

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

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: @JesseTAlford
• Comments: Happy Holidays!

---

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

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: @evanfarrar (by way of @JesseThomasAlford)

• Comments: Etcd had no changes. Consul is now at v145.

  @valeriap, @smoser-ibm: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the postgres-release team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: @valeriap
• Comments: No changes

---

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

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: @shashwathi
• Comments: No changes

---

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

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

---

@ahevenor, @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: / :-1:
• Decider:
• Comments:

---

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

• Approval: 👍
• Decider: @SocalNick
• Comments: Known issue, but CF-250 is already cut

---

@sclevine, @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: @sclevine
• 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: v3.10

---

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

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: @ematpl
• Comments: Diego 1.4.1 / GR 1.0.4 / cflinuxfs2 1.44.0 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:

[anEXPer]

Final release is up on bosh.io: http://bosh.io/d/github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-release?v=250

I jumped the gun and put the final out before I had everyone's approval. My apologies; this has led to us shipping without hearing from everyone, and to the inclusion of an known CAPI issue (now documented in the release notes, thanks Nick!).

Please also note that the CI job responsible for creating release-note-reminder tracker stories failed. I will be re-running it shortly, so there may be duplicate stories for contributing to the release notes.