CF v269

[ghost]

cf-release Release Candidate SHA for v269: 67dd5e62213373a36162e2ce778ba7ab77d6ce5c

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:

---

@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:

---

@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: @smoser-ibm
• Comments:

---

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

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: Shannon
• Comments: no change to routing-release

---

@sreetummidi, @jhamon: 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: Update to UAA 4.5.0

---

@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:
• Decider: @ahevenor
• Comments: Loggregator 91 statsd 1.0.29

---

@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: 1.36.0

---

@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: 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: v3.19

---

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

• Approval: :-1:
• Decider: @ematpl
• Comments: I just cut Diego v1.23.2 earlier today, and I'd like to get that out with this release. Looks like https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-release/commit/38f9958cd93b38a6775582ba2555c78511fb2d29 has a shot.

---

@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:
• Decider: @spikymonkey
• Comments: GrootFS 0.21.0

[emalm]

@dsabeti Could we advance to https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-release/commit/dfc709e0c36ce7e09ec699b1ba323280e8ac149f, the current release-candidate HEAD?

[spikymonkey]

@dsabeti looks like I don't have permission to edit the comment, but grootfs-release v0.21.0 is the one to go for.

[smoser-ibm]

@dsabeti for Postgres, I'd also vote for cloudfoundry/cf-release@dfc709e

[dsabeti]

Ok, @spikymonkey, I've added you to the release electors list.

@ematpl @smoser-ibm, I'll propose the new RC now.

[ghost]

cf-release Release Candidate SHA for v269: dfc709e0c36ce7e09ec699b1ba323280e8ac149f

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:

---

@evanfarrar, @genevievelesperance: 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 since last proposed RC, which was approved.

---

@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: @smoser-ibm
• Comments: now that we advanced to the new commit, we're good

---

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

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: Shannon
• Comments: non change

---

@sreetummidi, @jhamon: 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 Release 4.5.0 with JDK Update (UAA Bosh Release 44)

---

@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 91 statsd 1.0.29

---

@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: 1.36.0

---

@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: 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: v3.19

---

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

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: @ematpl
• Comments: Diego 1.23.2 / GR 1.9.0 / cflinuxfs2 1.141.0 / cf-networking 1.3.0 / grootfs 0.21.0 are compatible.

---

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

• Approval: 👍
• Decider: @jaydunk
• Comments: compatible with cf-networking 1.3

---

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

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

[emalm]

@jaydunk @rusha19 there's a compatibility record for https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-release/commit/dfc709e with cf-networking v1.3.0, are you 👍 now?

[dsabeti]

$ git push origin dfc709e0c36ce7e09ec699b1ba323280e8ac149f:release-elect

[dsabeti]

New release: https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-release/releases/tag/v269