CF v263

[ghost]

cf-release Release Candidate SHA for v263: aa89a92d09998349fb25cab9effa552e75376733

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, @staylor14: 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: This SHA seems to capture a brief moment where consul is at 167, then the next day it was reverted to 152. I assume we want 152, because it is still that way on master

---

@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: Bumped routing release to 0.156.0

---

@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: UAA needs to be bumped to 4.3.0. Will be done today

---

@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 89 statsd 1.0.25

---

@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: / :-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: v3.16

---

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

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: @ematpl
• Comments: Diego 1.17.0 / GR 1.7.0 / cflinuxfs2 1.123.0 / cf-networking 0.25.0 are compatible.

---

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

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

---

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

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

[ghost]

cf-release Release Candidate SHA for v263: 7d758e4ff90b7979f0cf73e9e5b527f54093778f

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, @staylor14: 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:

---

@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: Bump to UAA 4.3.0

---

@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:

---

@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:

---

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

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

---

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

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

[evanfarrar]

:-1: This SHA still seems to capture a brief moment where consul is at 167, then the next day it was reverted to 152. I assume we want 152, because it is still that way on master. We definitely don't want to leap to introducing links only to revert, right?

[dsabeti]

@evanfarrar: Those commits were reverted because other releases -- primarily Diego and Routing -- didn't also have the consul links niled out. I just check, and it looks like Diego nils out the new links, but Routing nils out the consul links. FWIW, the develop branch of routing release nils out the new links as well.

Here's the plan:

1. Revert consul to 152 for CF 263
2. When routing-release gets bumped, we can finally upgrade consul-release to 167 (or greater)

[ghost]

cf-release Release Candidate SHA for v263: a324380b893732a2d4f3dabe606b43f4ceb2a66f

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.

---

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

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: @evanfarrar
• Comments: Thanks! this is back to what I would expect for 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:

---

@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: @dgodd / @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, @jvshahid: Can you provide a compatible diego-release SHA or final release version?

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: @ematpl
• Comments: Diego 1.17.0 / GR 1.7.0 / cflinuxfs2 1.126.0 / cf-networking 0.25.0 are compatible.

---

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

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: @rusha19
• Comments: v0.25.0

---

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

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: @glestaris
• Comments: v0.19.0 is tested with Diego v1.17.0 and Garden runC 1.7.0.

[zrob]

@dsabeti it seems there are some pipeline issues around RATs that rel-int and capi are investigating. waiting to hear those results.

[zrob]

@dsabeti pipeline issues were config related, good to go

[dsabeti]

Ok, I think we're still waiting for input from Buildpacks and Container Networking.

@rusha19, @jaydunk, @sclevine, @dgodd -- could you sign off on your respective releases?

[zrob]

bump

[dsabeti]

$ git push origin a324380b893732a2d4f3dabe606b43f4ceb2a66f:release-elect

[dsabeti]

Final release cut: http://bosh.io/releases/github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-release?version=263