CF v254

[ghost]

cf-release Release Candidate SHA for v254: 142207c599f60f0a695f4519177866fc480d23cb

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: / :-1:
• Decider:
• Comments:

---

@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
• Comments: We'd like to be able to bump consul but the links column width issue is blocking us.

---

@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: bumped to v14

---

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

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: @plfx
• Comments:

---

@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:
• Decider:
• Comments: Loggregator version 79 is good, but the release should include v1.021 of statsd-injector. We are bumping this update now.

---

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

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

---

@sclevine, @dgodd: 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: v3.13

---

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

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: @ematpl
• Comments: Diego 1.9.0 / GR 1.2.0 / cflinuxfs2 1.56.0 / netman 0.17.0 are compatible.

---

@rusha19, @jaydunk: Can you provide a compatible cf-networking-release SHA or final release version?

• 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:

[hev]

@dsabeti - we missed bumping statsd to our latest version. we are doing so now.

[dsabeti]

👎
@ematpl We're waiting for a new diego release that fixes the bosh-lite manifest generation. From what I recall, the two issues had to do with the metron using the Loggregator V2 API and the cert generation.

[emalm]

@dsabeti is there an issue apart from Diego losing a race to Loggregator over regeneration of the loggregator CA (compare https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-release/commit/62cdfc67f7f7ab6f22754b51a529108fa8e257c4 with https://github.com/cloudfoundry/diego-release/commit/79580cd03a526e00735ea9119ab7e91b53cca0e9)?. If not, I may just regenerate the Diego-side certs anyway to do acceptance on BOSH-Lite and then commit them, but will also think about better ways for the two manifest systems to stay coordinated.

[dsabeti]

@ematpl No, the only issue is that issue with the loggregator CA. We need a new Diego release, so that we can get a new RC to ship.

[emalm]

I'll cut a new release once https://github.com/cloudfoundry/diego-release/commit/9aa3d7c98acdfda8ebf65aec6f0f72ce58cc8ec9 gets delivered in Diego CI.

[ghost]

cf-release Release Candidate SHA for v254: c8bb864da0c9fbb3d181b9ff91b4003c8a5f627b

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: / :-1:
• Decider:
• Comments:

---

@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
• Comments: no changes in etcd or consul

---

@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: bumped v14

---

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

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

---

@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: 👎
• Decider:@ahevenor
• Comments:Loggregator 80 unintentionally introduces an override that breaks a common convention for nozzles. We are working on bumping the fix in Loggregator v81

---

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

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

---

@sclevine, @dgodd: 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: Strongly prefer 19a275c instead, if possible. Only difference is more buildpacks.

---

@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: v3.14

---

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

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: @ematpl
• Comments: Diego 1.10.1 / GR 1.3.0 / cflinuxfs2 1.56.0 / netman 0.18.0 are compatible.

---

@rusha19, @jaydunk: Can you provide a compatible cf-networking-release SHA or final release version?

• 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:

[hev]

@dsabeti - 👎 for Loggregator 80 unintentionally introduces an override that breaks a common convention for nozzles. We are working on bumping the fix in Loggregator v81

[ghost]

cf-release Release Candidate SHA for v254: 646e14713d214732a1d1abff555eac51f2216ece

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: @dsabeti
• Comments:

---

@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
• Comments: no changes.

---

@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: bumped v14

---

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

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider:
• Comments: routing-release bumped to 0.147.0

---

@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 T.
• 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:
• Decider: @ahevenor
• Comments: Loggregator v81 , statsd-injector v1.0.22

---

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

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: @zrob
• Comments:

---

@sclevine, @dgodd: 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: Looks good to me!

---

@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: v3.14

---

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

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: @ematpl
• Comments: Diego 1.10.1 / GR 1.3.0 / cflinuxfs2 1.57.0 / netman 0.18.0 are compatible.

---

@rusha19, @jaydunk: Can you provide a compatible cf-networking-release SHA or final release version?

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: @rusha19
• Comments: cf-networking v0.18.0

---

@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:

[dsabeti]

git push origin 646e14713d214732a1d1abff555eac51f2216ece:release-elect

[dsabeti]

New release on github: https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-release/releases/tag/v254