Closed ghost closed 7 years ago
@fraenkel I just spoke with @sreetummidi. This proposed release contains the support in CAPI to allow for UAA signing key rotation without downtime. This is critical to allow Cloud Foundry operators to move to SHA2 signing keys.
I think we can cut this release and push for a fast follow CF-252 that contains the PR for HM9K in the same amount of time it would take to stall CF-251 for the PR.
cc @dsabeti
@fraenkel there was a problem with the PR for HM9K, we are working on a fix
Ok, so I will change my vote, but I would like a 252 as soon as possible then.
@rusha19 @jaydunk can you add 👍 or 👎 ?
@dsabeti all 👍
$ git push origin 493e5077dff689db6b8392580e5e2a602188571e:release-elect
Release on bosh.io: http://bosh.io/releases/github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-release?version=251 Release on github: https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-release/releases/tag/untagged-efeff150b952455cf7b0
cf-release Release Candidate SHA for v251: 493e5077dff689db6b8392580e5e2a602188571e
Please read these instructions, as they changed on 4 Nov 2015.
@dsabeti, @JesseTAlford: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the release integration team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?
@evanfarrar, @christianang: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the infrastructure team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?
@valeriap, @smoser-ibm: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the postgres-release team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?
@shalako, @shashwathi: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the routing team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?
@sreetummidi, @plfx: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the identity team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?
@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?
@SocalNick, @utako: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the CAPI team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?
@sclevine, @RochesterinNYC: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the Buildpacks and Stacks team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?
@nebhale, @cgfrost: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the Java Buildpack team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?
v3.11
@ematpl, @jfmyers9: Can you provide a compatible diego-release SHA or final release version?
@rusha19, @jaydunk: Can you provide a compatible netman-release SHA or final release version?
@fraenkel, @sykesm: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the DEA + HM9000 team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?