CF v276

[ghost]

cf-release Release Candidate SHA for v276: 1362c6ddb7a7e47c40bc6e2716205789205b702c

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:

---

@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: :+1:
• Decider: @aaronshurley
• Comments: no 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 4.6.1 which fixes a memory leak

---

@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 99 statsd 1.0.30

---

@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: 1.43.0

---

@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: v4.5.1

---

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

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: @emalm
• Comments: Diego 1.26.2 / GR 1.9.4 / cflinuxfs2 1.157.0 / cf-networking 1.8.0 / grootfs 0.26.0 are compatible.

---

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

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: @rusha19
• Comments: v1.8.0

---

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

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: @glestaris
• Comments: v0.26.0

[glestaris]

@dsabeti I am not sure if it makes sense for GrootFS to be in this list anymore...

We are not testing against CF and we essentially rely on Diego (which already includes GrootFS in their compatibility table) to integrate Groot, Garden, Diego and CF.

[dsabeti]

$ git push origin 1362c6ddb7a7e47c40bc6e2716205789205b702c:release-elect

[dsabeti]

New release: https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-release/releases/tag/v276