CF v282

[ghost]

cf-release Release Candidate SHA for v282: 1e794f7e0376c33096d80a17e528baa4388c832e

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 in consul-release or etcd-release since CF v281.

---

@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: v23

---

@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: routing-release 0.168.0

---

@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:

---

@ahevenor, @JohannaSmith: 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: @JohannaSmith
• 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: no change

---

@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: @idoru
• Comments: dotnet-core-buildpack 1.0.32 go-buildpack 1.8.14 nodejs-buildpack 1.6.12 php-buildpack 4.3.44 python-buildpack 1.6.3 ruby-buildpack 1.7.7 staticfile-buildpack 1.4.20

---

@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 1.31.0 / GR 1.10.0 / cflinuxfs2 1.172.0 / cf-networking 1.8.1 / grootfs 0.30.0 are compatible.

---

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

• Approval: :+1:
• Decider: @chinangela
• Comments: v.1.8.1, no changes.

[dsabeti]

$ git push origin 1e794f7e0:release-elect

[dsabeti]

New release: https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-release/releases/tag/v282