CF v279

[ghost]

cf-release Release Candidate SHA for v279: c10905ca9226ef8622622a7ed7df03fccd4c6540

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: No changes.

---

@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 change

---

@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 0.166.0

---

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

• Approval: :-1:
• Decider: Sree T.
• Comments: Thumbs down from identity team. We need 52.2 in there. We will be bumping today

---

@ahevenor 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: / :-1:
• Decider:
• Comments:

---

@sclevine, @idoru: 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: Missing several weeks worth of buildpacks that are added by e7cbb5fbe5db084796ac25fcea81529e6e5436f7

---

@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: v4.6

---

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

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: @emalm
• Comments: Diego 1.29.2 / GR 1.9.5 / cflinuxfs2 1.165.0 / cf-networking 1.8.1 / grootfs 0.29.0 are compatible.

---

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

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

---

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

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

[sreetummidi]

Thumbs down from identity team. We need 52.2 in there. We will be bumping today

[ghost]

cf-release Release Candidate SHA for v279: 174af709807b9c2f88ed83bb4e8cd70e69951158

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: @evanfarrar approved the last RC, and there have been no changes to etcd or consul since then.

---

@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: @dsabeti
• Comments: @valeriap approved the last RC, and there have been no chances to postgres since then.

---

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

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: @dsabeti
• Comments: @shalako approved the last RC, and there have been no changes to routing since then.

---

@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 52.2 , UAA release 4.7.1

---

@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: @dsabeti
• Comments: @ahevenor approved the last RC, and there have been no changes to Loggregator since then

---

@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 change 1.44.0

---

@sclevine, @idoru: 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: @dsabeti
• Comments: @nebhale approved the last RC, and there have been no changes to the Java buildpack since then.

---

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

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: @emalm
• Comments: Diego 1.29.2 / GR 1.9.6 / cflinuxfs2 1.166.0 / cf-networking 1.8.1 / grootfs 0.29.0 are compatible.

---

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

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: @rusha19
• Comments: v1.8.1

---

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

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: @dsabeti
• Comments: @emalm approved the Grootfs version in Diego compatibility.

[dsabeti]

$ git push origin 174af709807b9c2f88ed83bb4e8cd70e69951158:release-elect

[dsabeti]

New release: https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-release/releases/tag/v279