CF v271 - Githubissues

ghost commented 7 years ago

cf-release Release Candidate SHA for v271: 4d42ddd044dc24f8ae676561a85e85d445a1f51c

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: @genevievelesperance
Comments:

@smoser-ibm, @valeriap: 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: No change since 270

@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: routing-release 0.160.0

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

Approval: :+1:
Decider: @jhamon
Comments: v45. No change.

@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: no changes

@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: 1.39.0 .. contains a migration that can take many hours to run

@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: Diego 1.24.0 / GR 1.9.0 / cflinuxfs2 1.146.0 / cf-networking 1.4.0 / grootfs 0.24.0 are compatible.

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

Approval: :+1:
Decider: @jaydunk
Comments: v1.4.0 mandatory manifest changes, see release notes

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

Approval: :+1:
Decider: @glestaris
Comments: v0.24.0.

zrob commented 7 years ago

@dsabeti please hold off, the proposed capi release has a bad migration again :(

dsabeti commented 7 years ago

Sounds good @zrob. Just ping me when we can move forward again.

ghost commented 7 years ago

cf-release Release Candidate SHA for v271: 4b72cc95a0235a7870e2b7eefe7d0d615682fb3c

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: @genevievelesperance
Comments: No change.

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

Approval: 👎
Decider: Shannon
Comments: Routing team wants to revert the bump of 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: @jhamon
Comments: v45 No Change.

@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: statsd-injector-release now uses SHA2

@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: 1.40.0

@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

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

Approval: :+1:
Decider: @emalm
Comments: Diego 1.25.0 / GR 1.9.0 / cflinuxfs2 1.146.0 / cf-networking 1.4.0 / grootfs 0.24.0 are compatible.

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

Approval: :+1:
Decider: @rusha19
Comments: v1.4.0 mandatory manifest changes, see release notes

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

Approval: :+1:
Decider: @glestaris
Comments: v0.24.0.

ghost commented 7 years ago

cf-release Release Candidate SHA for v271: c3d10276eb0ea2e6ba844ea9a84c2fef142e9b77

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

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

@smoser-ibm, @valeriap: Does this cf-release SHA look good for the postgres-release team? Any bugs, regressions, or incomplete features of concern?

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

@shalako, @aaronshurley: 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, @jhamon: 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: :+1: / :-1:
Decider:
Comments:

@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: 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:

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

Approval: :+1:
Decider: @emalm
Comments: Diego 1.25.1 / GR 1.9.0 / cflinuxfs2 1.148.0 / cf-networking 1.4.0 / grootfs 0.24.0 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:

dsabeti commented 7 years ago

Hey folks, no need to sign off -- the only difference between this new RC is a revert of routing-release, which already been approved by the Routing team. We're going to move forward with c3d10276eb0ea2e6ba844ea9a84c2fef142e9b77 as soon as release notes are complete.

emalm commented 7 years ago

There are some related release updates, but they are 👍 based on the compatibility matrix and I've updated them in the release notes draft.

dsabeti commented 7 years ago

git push origin c3d10276eb0ea2e6ba844ea9a84c2fef142e9b77:release-elect

dsabeti commented 7 years ago

https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-release/releases/tag/v271

cloudfoundry-attic / cf-final-release-election

CF v271 #44