CF v255

[ghost]

cf-release Release Candidate SHA for v255: 41ba28f4337e4336840d58c60e8c721ebb26331e

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

---

@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: / :-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: v29 of UAA must be included https://github.com/cloudfoundry/uaa-release/tree/v29

---

@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, and 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: / :-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:

---

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

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

---

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

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: @ematpl
• Comments: Diego 1.11.0 / GR 1.3.0 / cflinuxfs2 1.60.0 / cf-networking 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:

---

@glestaris, @spikeymonkey: Can you provide a compatible grootfs-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:

[dsabeti]

@plfx Saw your thumbs down. Is there anything stopping you from bumping uaa-release?

[plfx]

Nope, the version is brand new. We can do this now.

[plfx]

@dsabeti Bumped on develop

[jasonkeene]

Nothing has changed for loggregator since 254. 👍

[glestaris]

Hey @dsabeti, I don't seem to be able to edit the issue. I'll send an ask ticket. Is there a Github team I need to ask them to add me to?

[dsabeti]

Hey @glestaris I just gave you permissions.

[ghost]

cf-release Release Candidate SHA for v255: e9fde0704960e306cd1c8a8f6e3ff3a2e0f08eb0

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: @dsabeti
• Comments: No changes from last RC, which got a thumbs up.

---

@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 routing 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: @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: @jasonkeene
• Comments: No changes to loggregator or statsd-injector-release.

---

@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: @dsabeti
• Comments: No changes from last RC that was given thumbs up.

---

@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 1.11.0 / GR 1.3.0 / cflinuxfs2 1.60.0 / cf-networking 0.18.0 are compatible.

---

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

• Approval: :-1:
• Decider: @jaydunk
• Comments: We want to wait until we have cf-networking-release v0.19.0

---

@glestaris, @spikeymonkey: Can you provide a compatible grootfs-release SHA or final release version?

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: @glestaris
• Comments: v0.15.0 works well with Garden runC v1.3.0.

---

@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 e9fde0704960e306cd1c8a8f6e3ff3a2e0f08eb0:release-elect

[dsabeti]

Release on bosh.io: http://bosh.io/releases/github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-release?version=255