CF v258

[ghost]

cf-release Release Candidate SHA for v258: 719ba4c5afa7a08a2ac21fe605748a3360cdc82e

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, @anEXPer: 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: Need guidance on routing-release. And waiting for new grootfs-release.

---

@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:

---

@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: Routing release bumped to 0.151.0

---

@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: Updated to UAA 3.16.0 , V34

---

@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 85 statsd 1.0.22

---

@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: no capi changes

---

@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:
• Decider: @nebhale
• Comments: v3.16

---

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

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: @ematpl
• Comments: Diego 1.14.1 / GR 1.5.0 / cflinuxfs2 1.115.0 / cf-networking 0.21.0 are compatible.

---

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

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: @rusha19
• Comments: v0.21.0

---

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

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: @glestaris
• Comments: v0.17.1.

[dsabeti]

👎 1. Need guidance on routing-release Update: routing release 0.151.0 is good to go. 2. Waiting for grootfs-release 0.17.1 Update: Grootfs 0.17.1 just shipped.

[shashwathi]

@dsabeti will update the release notes with latency metric measurement but routing release is good to go.

Regards Shash

[dsabeti]

👍 The two issues (routing-release and grootfs-release) have been addressed, so this SHA is good to ship once we get thumbs up from everyone else.

[dsabeti]

Cutting the release now: $ git push origin 719ba4c5afa7a08a2ac21fe605748a3360cdc82e:release-elect

[dsabeti]

New release: https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-release/releases/tag/v258