October 2022 - openstack-discuss - lists.openstack.org

[keystone][cache] How to tune role cache
by Eugen Block 08 Nov '22

08 Nov '22

Hi *, one of our customers has two almost identical clouds (Victoria), the only difference is that one of them has three control nodes (HA via pacemaker) and the other one only one control node. They use terraform to deploy lots of different k8s clusters and other stuff. In the HA cloud they noticed keystone errors when they purged a project (cleanly) and started the redeployment immediately after that. We did some tests to find out which exact keystone cache it is and it seems to be the role cache (default 600 seconds) which leads to an error in terraform, it reports that the project was not found and refers to the previous ID of the project. The same deployment seems to work in the single-control environment without these errors, it just works although the cache is enabled as well. I already tried to reduce the cache_time to 30 seconds but that doesn't help (although it takes more than 30 seconds until terraform is ready after the prechecks). But the downside of disabling the role cache entirely leads to significantly longer response times when using the dashboard or querying the APIs. Is there any way to tune the role cache in a way so we could have both a reasonable performance as well as being able to redeploy projects without a "sleep 600"? Any comments or recommendations are appreciated! Regards, Eugen

1 1

(openstack-ansible) Container installation in openstack
by Adivya Singh 07 Nov '22

07 Nov '22

Hi Team, Any input on this, to install container service in openstack using ansible. standard global parametre Regards Adivya Singh

2 5

[Kolla-ansible][Xena] How to update an Openstack deployment with new containers?
by wodel youchi 01 Nov '22

01 Nov '22

Hi, The documentation of kolla-ansible Xena does not talk about updating an existing Xena deployment with new containers. Could you please help with this? I found some lines about that in Yoga version, saying that, to update an existing deployment you have to : 1 - Update kolla-ansible it self : $ source xenavenv (xenavenv) $ pip install --upgrade git+ https://opendev.org/openstack/kolla-ansible@stable/xena 2 - Update the container Images with Docker pull 3 - Update my local registry if I am using one, and in my case I am, so I deleted the registry images then I recreated them. 4 - Then finally deploy again (xenavenv) $ kolla-ansible -i multinode deploy Is this the right procedure? because I followed the same procedure and I think it didn't change anything. For example I am taking nova-libvirt container as and example, in my local registry I have this : [root@rcdndeployer2 ~]# docker images | grep nova-libvirt 192.168.2.34:4000/openstack.kolla/centos-source-nova-libvirt xena 5be83d680102 31 hours ago 2. 34GB quay.io/openstack.kolla/centos-source-nova-libvirt xena *5be83d680102* *31 hours ago * 2. 34GB [root@rcdndeployer2 ~]# docker inspect -f '{{ .Created }}' *5be83d680102 * *2022-10-25*T02:33:13.172550584Z But in my compute nodes I have this : root@computehci24 ~]# docker ps | grep nova-lib b56a12bfd482 192.168.2.34:4000/openstack.kolla/centos-source-nova-libvirt:xena "dumb-init --single-…" *5 months ag**o Up Up 5 months (healthy) nova_libvirt* Regards.

1 1

Delivery reports about your e-mail
by mark＠stackhpc.com 31 Oct '22

31 Oct '22

The original message was received at Tue, 1 Nov 2022 07:26:06 +0900 from stackhpc.com [42.37.153.10] ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- <openstack-discuss(a)lists.openstack.org>

1 0

[OSSN-0091] BMC emulators developed in OpenStack community do not preserve passwords on VMs
by Jay Faulkner 31 Oct '22

31 Oct '22

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 ## Summary ## When deploying VirtualBMC or Sushy-Tools in an unsupported, production-like configuration, it can remove secret data, including VNC passwords, from a libvirt domain permanently. Operators impacted by this vulnerability must reconfigure any secret data, including VNC passwords, for the libvirt domain. These virtual machine emulators are tools to help emulate a physical machine's Baseboard Management Controller (BMC) to aid in development and testing of software that would otherwise require physical machines to perform integration testing activities. They are not intended or supported for production or long-term use of any kind. ## Affected Services / Software ## * Sushy-Tools, <=0.21.0 * VirtualBMC, <=2.2.2 There is no impact to any OpenStack software or services intended for production use. ## Patches ## * VirtualBMC: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/virtualbmc/+/862620 * Sushy-Tools: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/sushy-tools/+/862625 ## Discussion ## To perform some advanced operations on Libvirt virtual machines, the underlying XML document describing the virtual machine's domain must be extracted, modified, and then updated. These specific actions are for aspects such as "setting a boot device" (VirtualBMC, Sushy-Tools), Setting a boot mode (Sushy-Tools), and setting a virtual media device (Sushy-Tools). This issue is triggered when a VM has any kind of "secure" information defined in the XML domain definition. If an operator deploys VirtualBMC or Sushy-Tools to manage one of these libvirt VMs, the first time any action is performed that requires rewriting of the XML domain definition, all secure information -- including a VNC console password, if set -- is lost and removed from the domain definition, leaving the libvirt VM's exposed to a malicious console user. ## Recommended Actions ## Operators who may have been impacted by this vulnerability should immediately remove use of VirtualBMC and/or Sushy-Tools from their production environment. Then, validate and if necessary, reconfigure passwords for VNC access or any other impacted secrets. ## Notes ## The OpenStack team will ensure documentation is updated to clearly state these software packages are intended for development/CI use only, and are not safe to run in production. ## Credits ## Julia Kreger from Red Hat ## References ## Author: Jay Faulkner, G-Research Open Source Software This OSSN: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OSSN/OSSN-0090 Original Storyboard bug: https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2010382 Mailing List : [Security] tag on openstack-discuss(a)lists.openstack.org OpenStack Security Project : https://launchpad.net/~openstack-ossg CVE: CVE-2022-44020 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: FlowCrypt Email Encryption 8.3.8 Comment: Seamlessly send and receive encrypted email wsFzBAEBCgAGBQJjYDhhACEJEGt12Tm0JMbUFiEEvF1YmsGLSYuWqE+ta3XZ ObQkxtSCUw/9FEeakvlf06BWrk5Lc3TGwUKV0WiLaE4M0xjljkzg/3/580/E nhOTl/raPszlzgkGdrQTaH3Sj4AwUTdPHqqxjyK/Xb1DIm+CfS3bdbP0aLHG Y3Su4Z74unMaKbnbyDYhM1qMIzPyBruLpqiyYJGhSuzU/fu1O/LCWfSicvKK YDmAHJ9TjXuTMdWrLrkMknvJaLe0aJrNW5iqDnIh6YrUC2Pioi5h+OFKwDpn Ea+YnlAxKR7OQGRGcY3AwP1Jq87pdHZagcVThc/wnCATKT/FtaIogDkUnoMn qI+6MNjV3R4kyQCbyo35KeIDWm+541XsK0GoR5hcvR1AkwciSPBAkt3VHxpa p0g9hVcNTv+tWwN8LrdLRPMDuqKA51eNUvQCV8W+H42wS0uoaMPXglbZIuwv AmEoK8UC8Gii8cPoIkiZGSSOo4i+tlE/q+L/Mgs1opyt1Klcxs/Lm1PNylET XqLw70qKrfqWabZpKUxMS3F9JwyCkgnD5+t2x/qsqg5Hq+kUZqP8be3Oc7K7 He/gIneWDMpH1+J9Tm5ofyxtJCA+V96+cXoXYk8SncVf/O5djgd48UkQo1iJ NZlKxJsaKH5+JyPuXkR6hyqDrIkmbJRh4aU9nJBQyFho0fXuQVlC2iUOGa0F BgUFs5J6oQtglAAuyUoNuhuBJBwdW09NxQ4= =6yXE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 1

[oslo][tooz][openstack-ansible] Discussion about coordination (tooz), too many backend options, their state and deployment implications
by Christian Rohmann 31 Oct '22

31 Oct '22

Hallo openstack-discuss, apologies for this being quite a long message - I tried my best to collect my thoughts on the matter. 1) The role of deployment tooling in fulfilling the requirement for a coordination backend I honestly write this, triggered by openstack-ansible plans to add coordination via the Zookeeper backend (https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2022-October/031013…) On 27/10/2022 13:10, Dmitriy Rabotyagov wrote: > * Add Zookepeer cluster deployment as coordination service. > Coordination is required if you want to have active/active > cinder-volume setup and also actively used by other projects, like > Octavia or Designate. Zookeeper will be deployed in a separate set of > containers for LXC path First of all I believe it's essential for any OpenStack deployment tooling to handle the deployment of a coordination backend as many OS projects just rely in their design and code to have it in place. But I am convinced though there too many options, that some stronger guidance should be given to people designing and then deploying OS for their platform. This guidance certainly can be in the form of a comparison table - but when it comes to using deployment tooling like openstack-ansible, the provided "default" component or options for something might just be worth more than written text explaining all of the possible approaches. This hold especially true to me as you can get quite far with no coordination configured which then results in frustration and invalid bugs being raised. And it's not just openstack-ansible thinking about coordination deployment / configurations. To just point to a few: * Kolla-Ansible: https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2020-November/01883… * Charms: https://bugs.launchpad.net/charm-designate/+bug/1759597 * Puppet: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/puppet-oslo/+/791628/ * ... 2) Choosing the "right" backend driver I've recently been looking into the question what would be the "best" tooz driver to cover all coordination use cases the various OS projects require. Yes, the dependencies and use of coordination within the OS projects (cinder, designate, gnocchi, ...) are very different. I don't want to sound unfair, but most don't communicate which of the Tooz services they actually require. In any case, I might just like something to cover all possible requirements to "set it (up) and forget it, no matter what OS projects run on the platform. Apart from basic compatibility, there are qualities I would expect (in no particular order) from a coordination backend: * no "best-effort" coordination, but allowing for actual reliance on it (CP if talking CAP) * HA - this needs to be working just as reliably as my database as otherwise the cloud cannot function * efficient in getting the job done (e.g. support for events / watches to reduce latency) * lightweight (deployment), no additional components, readily packaged * very little maintenance operations * easy monitoring I started by reading into the tooz drivers (https://docs.openstack.org/tooz/latest/user/drivers.html) of which there are more than enough to require some research. Here are my rough thoughts: a) I ruled out the IPC, file or RDBMs (mysql, postgresql) backend options as they all have strong side-notes (issues when doing replication or no HA at all). Additionally they usually are not partition tolerant or support watches. b) Redis seems quite capable, but there are many side notes about HA and this also requires setting up and maintaining sentinel. c) Memcached supports all three services (locks, groups, leader-election) tooz provides and is usually already part of an OpenStack infrastructure. So looked appealing. But it's non-replicating architecture and lack of any strong consistency guarantees make it less of a good "standard". I was even wondering how tooz would try it's best to work with multiple memcached nodes (https://bugs.launchpad.net/python-tooz/+bug/1970659) d) Then there only is Zookeeper left, which also ticks all the (feature-)boxes (https://docs.openstack.org/tooz/latest/user/compatibility.html) and is quite a proven tool for coordination also outside of the OpenStack ecosystem. On the downside it's not really that well known and common (anymore) outside the "data processing" context (see https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/PoweredBy) Being a Java application it requires a JVM and its dependencies and is quite memory heavy to store just a few megabytes of config data. Looking at more and more people putting their OS control plane into something like Kubernetes it also seems even less suitable to be "moved around" a lot. Another issue might be the lack of a recent and non-EoL version packaged in Ubuntu - see https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/zookeeper/+bug/1854331. Maybe (!) this could be an indication of how commonly it is used outside of e.g. Support from TLS was only added in 3.5.5 (https://zookeeper.apache.org/doc/r3.5.5/zookeeperAdmin.html#Quorum+TLS) e) Consul - While also well known and loved, it has, like Zookeeper, quite a big footprint and is way more than just a CP-focused database. It's more of an application with man use cases. f) A last "strong" candidate is etcd. It did not surprise me to see it on the list of possible drivers and certainly is a tool known to many from running e.g. Kubernetes. It's actually already part of openstack-ansible deployment code as a role (https://github.com/openstack/openstack-ansible/commit/2f240dd485b123763442a…) as it is required when using Calico as SDN. While etcd is also something one must know how to monitor and operate, I allow me to say it might just be more common to find this operational knowledge. Also etcd has a smaller footprint than Zookeeper and it beeing "just a Golang binary" comes with (no) less dependencies. But I noticed that it does not even support "grouping", according to the feature matrix. But apparently this is just a documentation delay, seehttps://bugs.launchpad.net/python-tooz/+bug/1995125. What's left to implement would be leader-election, but there seems to be no technical reason why this cannot be done. this by no means is a comparison with a clear winner. I just want to stress how confusing having lots of options with no real guidance are. The requirement to chose and deploy coordination might not be a focus when looking into designing an OS cloud. 3) Stronger guidance / "common default", setup via OS deployment tooling and also used for DevStack and tested via CI To summarize, there are just too many options and implications in the compatibility list to quickly chose the "right" one for one's own deployment. While large-scale deployments might likely not mind for coordination to have a bigger footprint and requiring more attention in general. But for smaller and even mid-size deployments, it's just convenient to offload the configuration of coordination and the selection the backend driver to the deployment tooling. Making it way too easy for such installations to not use coordination and running into issues or every other installation using a different backend creates a very fragmented landscape. Add different operating system distributions and versions, different deployment tooling, different set and versions of OS projects used, there will be so many combinations. This will likely just cause OS projects to receive more and non-reproducible bugs. Also not having (a somewhat common) coordination (backend) used within CI and DevStack does not expose the relevant code paths to enough testing. I'd like to make the analogy to having "just" MySQL as the default database engine, while still allowing other engines to be used (https://governance.openstack.org/tc/resolutions/20170613-postgresql-status.…) Or labeling certain options as "experimental" as Neutron just did with "linuxbridge" (https://docs.openstack.org/neutron/latest//admin/config-experimental-framew…) or cinder with naming drivers unsupported (https://docs.openstack.org/cinder/ussuri/drivers-all-about.html#unsupported…) My point is that just having all those backends and no active guidance might make Tooz a very open and flexible component. I myself would wish for some less confusion around this topic and having a little less to think about this myself. Maybe the "selection" of Zookeeper by openstack-ansible is just that? I would love to hear your thoughts on coordination and why and how you ended up with using what. And certainly what your opinion on the matter of a stronger communicated "default" is. Thanks for your time and thoughts! Christian

3 3

[neutron] Bug Deputy Report October 24-30
by Nurmatov Mamatisa 31 Oct '22

31 Oct '22

Hi, Below is the week summary of bug deputy report for last week. One RFE was proposed and already discussed on drivers meeting, more information should be provided. Details: Critical -------- - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1995091 - [CI] "neutron-functional-with-oslo-master" failing with timeout - Confirmed - Unassigned - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1994491 - Functional tests job is failing on Ubuntu 22.04 - Incomplete - Assigned to Rodolfo Alonso Medium ------ - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1995031 - [CI][periodic] neutron-functional-with-uwsgi-fips job failing - Confirmed - Unassigned - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1994635 - [CI][tempest] Error in "test_multiple_create_with_reservation_return" - Confirmed - Assigned to Rodolfo Alonso Undecided --------- - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1995078 - OVN: HA chassis group priority is different than gateway chassis priority - New - Unassigned RFEs ---- - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1994137 - [RFE] Specify the precedence of port routes if multiple ports attached to a VM - Incomplete - Unassigned Best regards, Mamatisa Nurmatov Advanced Software Technology Lab / Cloud Technologies Research

1 0

[all][tc] What's happening in Technical Committee: summary 2022 Oct 28: Reading: 5 min
by Ghanshyam Mann 28 Oct '22

28 Oct '22

Hello Everyone, Here is this week's summary of the Technical Committee activities. 1. TC Meetings: ============ * We had this week's meeting on Oct 27. Most of the meeting discussions are summarized in this email. Meeting logs are available @ https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2022/tc.2022-10-27-15.00.log.html * Next TC weekly meeting will be on Nov 3 Thursday at 15:00 UTC, feel free to add the topic to the agenda[1] by Nov 2. 2. What we completed this week: ========================= * 2021 User Survey TC Question Analysis[2] * Appointed hongbin as Zun PTL[3] 3. Activities In progress: ================== TC Tracker for 2023.1 cycle --------------------------------- * I have prepared the 2023.1 tracker etherpad which includes the TC working items for the 2023.1 cycle[4]. Open Reviews ----------------- * Four open reviews for ongoing activities[5]. 2023.1 cycle TC PTG Summary ------------------------------------- I sent the TC sessions and TC+Leader discussion summary on ML[7][8]. User Survey: --------------- TC worked on the modification of TC questions for the 2023 survey[9]. TC chair nomination & election process ----------------------------------------------- We are formalizing the process of TC chair nomination process. Two options are up for the review[10][11]. Fixing Zuul config error ---------------------------- We request projects having zuul config error to fix them, Keep supported stable branches as a priority and Extended maintenance stable branch as low priority[12]. Project updates ------------------- * None. 4. How to contact the TC: ==================== If you would like to discuss or give feedback to TC, you can reach out to us in multiple ways: 1. Email: you can send the email with tag [tc] on openstack-discuss ML[13]. 2. Weekly meeting: The Technical Committee conduct a weekly meeting every Thursday 15:00 UTC [14] 3. Ping us using 'tc-members' nickname on #openstack-tc IRC channel. See you all next week in PTG! [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee#Next_Meeting [2] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/836888 [3] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/860759 [4] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-zed-tracker [5] https://review.opendev.org/q/projects:openstack/governance+status:open [7] https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2022-October/030954… [8] https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2022-October/030953… [9] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-2023-user-survey-questions [10] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/862772 [11] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/862774 [12] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/zuul-config-error-openstack [13] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-discuss [14] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/#Technical_Committee_Meeting -gmann

1 0

[tacker][ptg] Antelope PTG Summary
by Yasufumi Ogawa 28 Oct '22

28 Oct '22

Hi all, We had great PTG sessions in Tacker team, and hopefully all. This is a summary of what we discussed during our sessions in three days. All of items and the results of discussion is here [1]. Day 1 (18 Oct 2022) 1. Reducing resources for FTs - We shared suggestions for fixing critical issues in functional tests in which we've had some unreasonable failures, especially at the end of releases. - Removing/deprecating unecessary legacy features and its tests. - Quick analysis for the failures [1]. - Wishlist for the item [2]. - Agree to focus on jobs has the large num of failures to revise tests. 2. Support tacker-db-manage for Multi DB backend - Support for PostgreSQL doesn't work, for insatnce, some issues in tacker-db-manage. - We agreed to not only fix the issues, but also take care other backends. - Revise tacker-db-manage for supporting multi DB backend. Start to support Postgres in antelope first, and other ones in the next releases then. - Proposed design is not so mature for now, so continue to discuss to revise. 3. Migrate OpenStack testing from Ubuntu Focal (20.04) to Ubuntu Jammy (22.04) - We agreed to migrate Focal to Jammy Ubuntu release as one of the community goal in this release [4]. - Candidate patches for the update have already proposed by manpreetk not only for tackder but also other releated projs. - https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tacker/+/861137 - https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tacker-horizon/+/861571 - https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-tackerclient/+/861572 - https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tosca-parser/+/861136 - https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/heat-translator/+/861158 https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/migrate-to-jammy 4. Bug Triage in Tacker - Add item of bug triage in IRC etherpad to discuss about bug triage. Day 2 (19 Oct 2022) 1. Operator Hour - Guys from KDDI and NTT Docomo joined and proposed their proposals as telcom operators [5]. 1.1. Support of redanduncy - For availability, essential to make Tacker redundant for commercial use, but less than we expected for the current impl. - What is the tacker specific consideration point is store VNF packages. 1.2. Error handling and recovering operation - More tests for changing error status, disaster recovery are required. 1.3. Detailed logs - Not enough log messages especially for management drivers. - Error message in tacker-server.log and tacker-conductor.log is usefull and enough for vnfm-admin, but like openstack vnflcm op show comannd and api's information is not enough for vnfm-user. 1.4. Roadmap - Having explicit roadmap is helpful for oprators to be interested. - Comply with ETSI NFV Rel4 is one of the good example for the direction. 2. Add sample coordinate VNF script using coordination API - We agreed to implement interfaces ETSI NFV SOL002 v3.5.1 defines the Coordination VNF interface for coordination with external management components. 3. Revise automatic operation state transition for N-Act configuration - v2API has a function to automatically transition opocc in an intermediate state to the final state when the tacker-conductor starts up, to recover inoperable opocc in the PROCESSING state by conductor down. - It causes a problem in N-Act setting. The opocc which are being handled by other working conductors are also automatically transitioned to the final state. We propose solutions for limiting opocc to be transitioned to those handled by the downed conductor. 4. Set different number of instances for same delta and aspectId - Fix overwriting the value for same aspect and delta id. - Multi VDUs Scale of V1 API isn’t supported by the issue. 5. Continue to update the remaining patch from Zed version - Move forward reviews on gerrit. Day 3 (20 Oct 2022) 1. Enhancement of Tacker API Resource Access Policy - Current Tacker policy control access to API resources by default role such as admin or any only. - We propose Fine-grained API resource access management based on user and VNF information according to operator usecases. 2. Secure RBAC: Implement support for project-reader persona in Tacker - As per the TC and community wide goal, next cycle 2023.1 is the must for all projects to implement the phase-1 (project personas). Plan to do it in Tacker in 2023.1 cycle will be helpful in community wide goal [6][7]. - Conclusions: Clarify conflicts can be caused while introducing new roles of S-RBAC to implement the fine grained APIs 3. Support Tacker auto-scale and auto-heal without NFVO (k_fukaya) - Zed release supported, Fault Management/ Performance Management(FM/PM) interfaces, and AutoHeal and AutoScale with external monitoring. However, Heal or Scale execution must be triggered by NFVO. This feature proposes implementing support receiving alerts from external monitoring tools, which can be VNFM driven AutoHeal and AutoScale without NFVO. 4. Discuss Tacker support versions and updates for K8s/Helm/Prometheus - The support versions in Antelope should be determined, as some versions may be inconsistent and support may expire before release. Considering the support period and development risk, it seems good to decide on the following. - k8s : 1.25 (current latest version) - helm : 3.10 (current latest version) - prometheus : 2.42 (next LTS version) - Update test patch for k8s 1.25.2 and helm 3.10.1 - https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tacker/+/860633 (Zuul +1) - Add version information under user guide. 5. AWS vim support - Add support for EC2 as VIM for the first step for AWS. - Whole discussion is here [8]. 6. Marking Deprecated and obsoleting of Legacy API - Should start to discussion about deprecation and obsoleting Legacy Tacker API (excluding VIM feature). - Deprecation process should follow as "Deprecation Guidelines" [9]. - The key point is - APIs should be marked deprecated before obsoleting and should be marked for at least 12 months. - An email thread will be started on openstack-discuss to determine how many people are using the deprecated API. - We will continue our discussion and move towards removing the Legacy API (excluding VIM feature). [1] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tacker-antelope-ptg [2] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tacker-antelope-failures-analysis [3] https://bugs.launchpad.net/tacker/+bug/1993187 [4] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/goals/selected/migrate-ci-jobs-to-ubunt… [5] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/oct2022-ptg-operator-hour-tacker [6] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/goals/selected/consistent-and-secure-rb… [7] https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2022-October/030863… [8] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tacker-antelope-aws-vim-support [9] https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/deprecation.html#guidelines

1 0

[horizon] missing reviews for cinder backup filtering
by Mohammed Naser 28 Oct '22

28 Oct '22

Hi folks, We're nearing a very long time that this patch has been open, it's undergone several revisions from our team and sitting idle almost 2 months. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/horizon/+/791532/ Can we please help get this landed, we're trying our best to stick to our upstream only :) Thanks Mohammed -- Mohammed Naser VEXXHOST, Inc.

1 0