March 2026 - openstack-discuss - lists.openstack.org

[requirements][horizon] Requirements freeze exception request
by Radomir Dopieralski 12 Mar '26

12 Mar '26

Hello, I would like to request a requirements freeze exception to bump the version of Django from 4.2.28 to 5.2.12. It is important for Horizon to ship with a version of Django that is security supported, and the security support for Django 4.2.8 ends next month. Django 5.2.12 is a long-term-support release, and will have security support for the next two years [1]. We have been working on making Horizon compatible with Django 5.2 in this release, but the disruption of the gates and the distractions caused by it in the last few weeks prevented us from getting the relevant patches merged on time for the freeze [2]. The patch for requirements is [3] [1] https://endoflife.date/django [2] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/horizon/+/973902 [3] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/requirements/+/979862 -- Radomir Dopieralski

5 4

[tc][ptls] OpenInfra Live: OpenStack 2026.1 'Gazpacho'
by Allison Price 12 Mar '26

12 Mar '26

Hi everyone, As we get closer to the next release date, I wanted to do the bi-annual call for volunteers to talk about the release highlights coming out of OpenStack 2026.1 ‘Gazpacho.’ The plan would be for this episode to be on Thursday, April 2 at 1400 UTC (9am CT). In case you have not seen a past episode, you can check out the format here [1]. If possible, I would like to finalize the lineup by first thing next week so we can promote with ample time. This is always our most popular webinar. If you have any questions, just let me know. Thanks! Allison [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdqL6umlM1w

5 5

[kolla] Proposing Bertrand Lanson for kolla-reviewers
by Michał Nasiadka 12 Mar '26

12 Mar '26

Hello, I’d like to propose Bertrand (blanson) for being a member of the new kolla-reviewers group in Gerrit. That group is a step entry into being a core member of the project - gives +2 right without workflow. Bertrand has been very active in both code submissions and reviews and has solved some of the Podman issues that we have. If nobody opposes - I’ll add Bertrand in a week from now. Cheers, Michal

2 1

[dev][ptl][release] Cycle highlights for 2026.1/Gazpacho
by Jeremy Stanley 12 Mar '26

12 Mar '26

Now's the time for merging your 2026.1/Gazpacho release highlights, so if you have something you want to mention then write and push cycle-highlights additions for the corresponding deliverable files in the openstack/releases repository at your earliest opportunity. The OpenInfra marketing machine is getting ready to digest what's at https://releases.openstack.org/gazpacho/highlights.html and put together a press release and package for news outlets. They're interested in whatever you're excited to include, but especially anything related to AI, digital sovereignty, security, or VMware feature parity. Please get your highlights in this week if at all possible! -- Jeremy Stanley

1 1

[oslo] Proposal to add Ghanshyam Maan as core team
by Daniel Mats Niklas Bengtsson 11 Mar '26

11 Mar '26

Hi everyone, I hope you are all doing well. I would like to propose adding Ghanshyam Maan to the oslo core team. Ghanshyam has been actively contributing to the Oslo libraries for some time. He regularly participates in technical discussions, including work around multiprocessing, provides thoughtful and constructive code reviews, and has contributed several solid patches. He is also currently serving as the TACT-SIG liaison and has offered to take on the role of release liaison as well. His consistent involvement in reviews and project discussions demonstrates a strong commitment to the Oslo projects and to the OpenStack community. I believe he would be a great addition to the oslo core team. Please reply with your votes (+1 / 0 / -1). The vote will remain open for one week.

2 1

Next Digital Sovereignty WG Meeting
by Kendall Nelson 11 Mar '26

11 Mar '26

Hello Everyone! I hope you enjoyed the bye-week; it's time to vote on the next meeting time <https://beta.framadate.org/polls/8529564824278c0ca549>! The next meeting will take place March 17th, 18th or 19th depending on your responses. You have until March 15th to reply to the poll. As for the other in progress items we have: - Allison is drafting sample stances for us to review and select during the meeting - those drafts will be added to the etherpad <https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/Digital-Sovereignty-WG> before the end of the week. - It doesn't look like anyone has been brave enough to jump in and start the comparison sheet <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XhJoB88pkWf26w1JWuo5KqSTrQicTiTZY14…> nor the best practices guide <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Pv02JFm58k-hefgSQ0_4fgsWQO0erqe42JRZz6I…> so I will try to add some content ahead of the meeting to get the ball rolling unless someone else gets there first! - We currently have three volunteers for doing thought leadership pieces in this space - are there any other volunteers? - Anyone that volunteered to provide a case study is encouraged to begin that work if it has not already been started as we will be touching on updates during the call as well! Did I miss anything? Any questions? If not, please respond to the poll and we will see each other soon! -Kendall

2 3

[cinder][ops] Migrate volume backend from decommissioned node
by Isaac Vicente 11 Mar '26

11 Mar '26

Hello all, In the past week I've added a new controller and decommissioned an old one, following the official documentation [1], and I wrote a version of my own [2], specific to my environment. In the section "Removing existing controllers", it's necessary to move agents and remove services of the node that will be decommissioned. So far so good, until I realize that a volume has the following property: os-vol-host-attr:host: <old_node>@rbd-1#rbd-1 It means that this volume is still on the backend of the removed node. So I tried to migrate it to another backend, and the migration status is "starting" for a long time. In the cinder-scheduler logs: WARNING cinder.scheduler.host_manager volume service is down. (host: <old_node>@rbd-1) To me, the migration stays in this status because the proper backend is down. To mention, I'm using Ceph as cinder backend. Also, there's no mention of the volume being migrated on other controller nodes. Is there any method to migrate all volumes of this backend without needing to re-deploy the old controller? Versions: - Openstack: caracal (2024.1) - OS: Ubuntu 22.04 - kolla-ansible: 18.8.1 [1] https://docs.openstack.org/kolla-ansible/latest/user/adding-and-removing-ho… [2] https://isaacvicente.github.io/posts/replacing-control-nodes-with-kolla-ans…

1 0

Ideas to improve contributor and maintainer experience
by Ildiko Vancsa 10 Mar '26

10 Mar '26

Hi OpenStack Community, I’m reaching out to you about some next steps after the metrics and survey analysis for the Flamingo cycle. As we’ve been diving into data[1] and feedback[2] to better understand challenges that contributors and maintainers in OpenStack are facing, we reached the stage to start working with teams on improvement ideas. A few challenges stood out for us, like mismatched expectations caused by incomplete communication or silence, or inconsistencies in where maintainers track priorities and progress and where contributors look for this information. While more people to do reviews and maintenance work is always in need, clear and proactive communication practices can improve maintainer and contributor experience across the board. Below is a summary of the key ideas that Jeremy started to share with teams, to start experimenting with: 1. Make Review Priorities Explicit, and Don’t Forget to Keep Them Up to Date While many teams already document and publicize their review priorities and decision-making processes, the last survey round showed that contributors are often not aware of where to look for this information. Since there’s no single entry point into the community, mentioning the processes and pointing at resources is often helpful, like linking to priority criteria in review comments so contributors understand where their change fits and how they can engage in reprioritization discussions. Transparency here reduces uncertainty and helps contributors plan effectively. In addition, even when a team has a clear process to define, document and track priorities, information can get lost between release cycles. Adding it to the end-of-release tasks to update progress on ongoing items and deal with the ones that didn’t conclude in the cycle ending can improve contributor experience and help with more accurate planning for the upcoming cycle. This also means to check on the incomplete items at the start of the next release cycle and factor in that ongoing work when calculating bandwidth and availability. 2. Proactively Communicate Reviewer Availability It’s very easy to assume that project maintainers are available to do reviews full time, even more seasoned contributors make this mistake from time to time. Clear communication can ease the pressure on maintainers. This can include signals about reviewer bandwidth, upcoming absences, or looking for people who can take on ongoing reviews for some time can significantly reduce ambiguity. When contributors understand expected wait times—and are encouraged to share their own availability—coordination improves and stalled reviews can decrease. 3. Use Clear, Accessible Language Given that English is not the primary language for much of our community, we should avoid excessive acronyms and team-specific jargon. Clear, plain language lowers barriers to entry and reduces avoidable misunderstandings. It also helps new and casual contributors to feel more included and can increase the probability of them sticking around. 4. Develop Contributor and Reviewer Checklists Once the release cycle gets busy, it’s easy to forget about some of the above mentioned new practices before they become a habit. To help overcome that, we are also working on simple checklists to guide reviewers when leaving comments on new or in-progress changes. These will serve as lightweight guardrails for both new and experienced contributors and maintainers to further improve efficiency without added complication or burden. 5. Provide Reusable Review Templates Some of the above practices can result in broader comments in reviews, which can feel like a burden to reviewers and maintainers. We are working on creating response templates for common review scenarios, which you can fine tune for your project and context and then copy and paste into ongoing reviews where applicable. Templates can increase efficiency while reducing the time spent on phrasing review comments and making sure all useful information and resources are shared. Some teams have already been following this practice, which we will use as inspiration. You can also think about templates as a way to get through your review checklist quicker. 6. Publish Case Studies of Successful Contribution Models and Practices Some project teams seem to handle pressure and incoming load better than others, which can serve as inspiration for others to figure out what practices and methods to implement. This also applies to companies who have their employees working upstream, as in some having better practices to support their people than others. We aim to collaborate with teams and companies and teams alike to capture practices that yield better productivity without burnout. Documenting what works as case studies can help project teams and companies to understand how to implement practices in their own context. While we work on refining improvement ideas and sharing additional details we welcome your feedback and help to let us know what worked for you, and what practice didn’t produce the outcome or improvement you and your team hoped for. Some project teams are also experimenting with AI, to use it to speed up code reviews and navigate their tasks easier and more efficiently. While these practices are not yet ready to share widely as standards, OpenInfra community managers are curious to learn about your experience so far! We will schedule a session for the upcoming PTG[3] in April to discuss ideas and next steps further. Best regards, Ildikó [1] https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack… [2] https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack… [3] https://openinfra.org/ptg/

1 0

[openstack][neutron][ovn]Cannot ping VIP without disable port security
by Nguyễn Hữu Khôi 10 Mar '26

10 Mar '26

Hello, I am setting up HA OPNsense on OpenStack, and here are the steps I followed. I successfully configured CARP between two firewall instances, but from a PC in the same subnet as the VIP, I cannot ping the VIP address. When I capture traffic on the master firewall, I can see the ARP request and reply, but on my PC I do not see any reply packets. I have also configured allowed_address_pairs with the VIP address on the member ports, but the VIP only responds when I disable port security. Additionally, I created a port with the VIP address and assigned a floating IP to it. However, it does not work unless I *disable the port admin state*. When I repeatedly refresh the browser (press F5 many times), the traffic is redirected between the two firewall members, which means the connection does not remain persistent on the CARP master. Is there any additional configuration required in OpenStack (Neutron / OVN) to properly support CARP VIPs without disabling port security? Thank you for your assistance. Nguyen Huu Khoi

3 7

[ops][publiccloud-sig] Public Cloud SIG meeting d.d. 11 March
by Kees Meijs | Nefos 10 Mar '26

10 Mar '26

Hello Stackers, Tomorrow (that's 11 March) the bi-weekly Public Cloud SIG meeting will be held again. The publicly available video meeting will be conducted from 08:05 hrs UTC (09:05 hrs CET) until 08:55 hrs UTC (09:55 hrs CET) here: https://meetpad.opendev.org/publiccloud-sig Additional information to be found on https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/PublicCloudSIG See you tomorrow! Cheers, Kees __ Kees Meijs BICT Nefos Cloud & IT <https://nefos.com/contact> Nefos IT bv Burgemeester Mollaan 34a 5582 CK Waalre - NL kvk 66494931 +31 (0)88 2088 188 <tel:+31882088188> nefos.com <https://nefos.com/contact> The information contained in this message is intended for the addressee only and may contain classified information. If you are not the addressee, please delete this message and notify the sender; you should not copy or distribute this message or disclose its contents to anyone. Any views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual(s) and not necessarily of the organization. No reliance may be placed on this message without written confirmation from an authorised representative of its contents. No guarantee is implied that this message or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended. General terms and conditions ("The NLdigital Terms") apply to all our products and services.

1 0

[Nova][Vms]Persistent I/O Errors in RBD-backed Instances After Compute Node Failure
by Thamanna Farhath 10 Mar '26

10 Mar '26

Hello, We are currently investigating an issue related to OpenStack (2023.1) instances using Ceph RBD storage. However, after further testing in a lab environment we observed that the problem occurs specifically when a compute node goes down or reboots unexpectedly. In this situation, the instances that were running on the affected compute node later experience persistent I/O errors inside the guest OS, even after the compute node comes back online, the instance is usually in a SHUTOFF state, and when we try to start it again, the same I/O errors appear inside the guest. We also attempted instance evacuation to another compute node, but the evacuated instance still shows the same I/O errors inside the guest. We would like to understand the recommended approach in such cases: • What is the best practice to recover RBD-backed instances after a compute node failure when persistent I/O errors appear inside the guest? • Are there any recommended configurations or operational procedures in OpenStack or Ceph to prevent or mitigate this situation? Any suggestions or guidance would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Thamanna Farhath Disclaimer : The content of this email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and remove the messages from your system. If you are not the named addressee, it is strictly forbidden for you to share, circulate, distribute or copy any part of this e-mail to any third party without the written consent of the sender. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secured or error free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late, incomplete, or may contain viruses. Therefore, we do not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email."

2 1

[kolla-ansible][flamingo][vpnaas] Problem and solution
by Franck VEDEL (UGA) 10 Mar '26

10 Mar '26

2 1

[tc][all] OpenStack Technical Committee Weekly Summary and Meeting Agenda (2026.1/R-3)
by Goutham Pacha Ravi 10 Mar '26

10 Mar '26

Hello Stackers, We're three weeks away from the date of the coordinated release of OpenStack 2026.1 "Gazpacho" [1]. At the end of this week, all deliverables following the "cycle-with-rc" release model [2] will have published a release candidate. This should assist the community in testing, finding, and patching any release-critical issues for a timely release on April 01, 2026. Looking ahead into the 2026.2 "Hibiscus" release cycle, the OpenStack Technical Committee has updated testing runtimes [3]. We are strongly recommending testing all Python deliverables shipping in the Hibiscus release with Python 3.14; although the common CI template for unit testing will run the job as "non-voting". When we have an operating system available that ships Python 3.14 natively (such as the impending Ubuntu 26.04 LTS), test jobs are expected to become smoother and require less time and resources. PTL Elections are ongoing for Horizon and Barbican [4]. If you are an Active Project Contributor (and an OpenInfra Foundation Individual Member) who hasn't voted yet, please do exercise your vote. If you're having trouble finding your ballot, please reach out to election officials via this email list or ping them within #openstack-election on OFTC. I'd like to congratulate our latest Outreachy Intern, Rose Kimondo, for successfully completing her internship with the OpenStack Manila and Horizon project teams [5]. Rose worked on significant improvements to Manila UI, and Carlos Eduardo da Silva (carloss) and I had the pleasure of mentoring her. If you are aware of opportunities that would retain Rose in our community, please reach out directly to her. === Weekly Meeting === The TC has officially re-formed for the 2026.2 cycle, and our last weekly IRC meeting was held on March 03, 2026 [6]. Our immediate focus was establishing a steady administrative foundation. We'll be electing a new Chair, refreshing our liaisons for the Vulnerability Management, Election and DPL teams, and auditing our weekly meeting time to account for upcoming Daylight Saving Time changes in some parts of the world. Beyond these logistics, we discussed ongoing CI breakages in the requirements repository related to setuptools pinning and a particularly thorny issue where an abandoned dependency is currently blocking Horizon translations [7]. We also discussed "leaderless" project teams. For projects like Masakari, which shows promise in the current market conditions (such as VMware-to-OpenStack migrations), we are exploring a transition to the Distributed Project Leadership (DPL) model to spread the governance load among active contributors. Projects like Vitrage and Venus have seen prolonged inactivity without clear revival interest; we are moving toward their formal retirement. This serves our broader objective of directing community energy toward projects that demonstrate both active maintenance and clear future utility, rather than maintaining technical debt. The next meeting of the OpenStack Technical Committee is today, March 10, 2026, at 1700 UTC. This meeting will be hosted on the #openstack-tc channel on OFTC. Please see the agenda on the meeting's wiki page [8]. I hope to see you there. === Upcoming Events === - 2026-03-10: OpenInfra Board Meeting: https://board.openinfra.org/ - 2026-03-12: 2026.1 "Gazpacho" Release Candidates due - 2026-03-23: KubeCon+CloudNativeCon EU begins: https://events.linuxfoundation.org/kubecon-cloudnativecon-europe/ - 2026-04-20: OpenInfra PTG begins: https://openinfra.org/ptg/ - 2026-04-25: OpenInfra Days, Nigeria: https://www.meetup.com/openstack-nigeria-user-group/events/313525373/ Thank you very much for reading! On behalf of the OpenStack TC, Goutham Pacha Ravi (gouthamr) [1] 2026.1 "Gazpacho" Release Schedule: https://releases.openstack.org/gazpacho/schedule.html [2] OpenStack release models: https://releases.openstack.org/reference/release_models.html [3] Tested runtimes for OpenStack 2026.2: https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/runtimes/2026.2.html [4] OpenStack 2026.2 PTL Elections: https://governance.openstack.org/election/ [5] Rose Kimondo's Outreachy Internship blog: https://rosekimondo.dev/blog/ [6] TC Meeting IRC Log, March 03 2026: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2026/tc.2026-03-03-17.00.html [7] Horizon translations blocked: https://github.com/Zegocover/enmerkar/pull/8 [8] TC Meeting Agenda, March 10 2026: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee#Next_Meeting

1 0

[neutron] Bug deputy - week of March 2nd
by Slawek Kaplonski 09 Mar '26

09 Mar '26

Hi, I was bug deputy last week. It was fairly quiet week regarding neutron bugs (there were issues impacting our CI but those were not really Neutron related). ### Critical - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2143144 - [networking-sfc] py312 job broken - fixed already by Rodolfo with: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/networking-sfc/+/978762 ### High - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2143336 - [FT] test_gateway_chassis_least_loaded_scheduler_anti_affinity unstable - **unassigned**, gate failure issue, for now we are skipping this unstable test ### Low - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2143050 - Auto allocate service plugin should inherit from ``neutron_lib.services.base.ServicePluginBase`` - fix proposed by Rodolfo: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/neutron/+/978898, - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2143233 - # [neutron-fwaas] Document: OVN driver has no ``logapi`` implementation - documentation improvement, I assigned it to myself, - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2143560 - # Optimization: create a bulk operation for ``_create_port_security_group_binding`` - unassigned, seems a bit like a low-hanging-fruit -- Slawek Kaplonski Principal Software Engineer Red Hat

1 0

[puppet][tc] Future of the project
by Takashi Kajinami 09 Mar '26

09 Mar '26

I had similar discussions earlier in #puppet-openstack several times, but I think it's time to start more formal discussions. As some of you may know, Puppet OpenStack project has been facing several challenges for a few years due to the changes made in the external but related communities, and very honestly speaking, the project is at risk. IMO we have two major challenges now. - RDO officially announced that they discontinue RPM builds and focus on new container-base delivery, based on source-to-build. https://lists.rdoproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.rdoproject.org/threa… Because the primary (and only) architecture we currently support is installation from packages, this means CentOS Stream may no longer be in our support scope. CentOS Stream + RDO has been the primary (and only voting) test architecture because it provides the trunk packages which allow us to test the latest code in development. We could technically switch our primary test architecture to the other platforms like Ubuntu or Debian but this means we can't release our modules in coordinated release timings (because we can implement and test the changes for a new version only after the version is released by these distributions) As we've seen some drastic changes triggered by some initiatives (like eventlet removal) and expect more coming soon, this "lagging-behind" development models can cause several problems like [1]. [1] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/puppet-neutron/+/978000 - The upstream puppet has been "dead" after Perforce (who acquired puppetlabs) changed their strategies. OpenVox was created as a fork of puppet, but there are number of core modules such as puppetlabs-apache or puppetlabs-mysql which are not yet forked. I've asked possibility to fork and host these in OpenVox but it was not acceptable due to limited resources the OpenVox community and no real commitment (more specifically speaking, sponsorship) I can provide. There are some works done earlier to replace puppet by OpenVox but it is essentially blocked by the fixes needed in these "abandoned" puppetlabs modules. In addtion, we need to bump versions of our testing platform soon, and I expect these unmaintained modules cause new problems. As afar as I'm aware of, migration to CentOS 10 is completely blocked by "unmaintained puppetlabs-mysql[2], and I expect more for migration to Ubuntu 26.04 or Debian 14 we need in upcoming cycles. [2] https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppetlabs-mysql/issues/1676 So... The situation is getting out of my control and I'd admit that I may soon terminate the project in case the situation is not improved, given my work in the OpenStack community has been all voluntary-based these days. I intend to continue my PTL role of this project for next cycle, so that I can help anyone who would be interested in sustaining the project, but I hope that we get some conclusion and agreement about the future project direction and maintenance during this cycle. Please reply to this in thread or reach me directly (in email or irc) if you are interested in further discussions. Thank you, Takashi -- Takashi Kajinami irc: tkajinam github: https://github.com/kajinamit launchpad: https://launchpad.net/~kajinamit

4 6

[keystone] App Credential reactivation after reconnection is not immediate
by Vincent Godin 08 Mar '26

08 Mar '26

If you create a 24-hour credential application with a non-local user who has a 2-hour time-to-live (default_authorization_ttl), after 2 hours the TTL resets to 0 and the credential application stops working, which is expected. If the user logs back in, there's a waiting period before the credential application becomes functional again, and the same applies if the user want to create a new credential application. I've noticed that if the user leaves a group with member privileges, for example, their app credentials are immediately invalidated. The same behavior should occur when the user logs back in after the TTL expires.

2 1

[Nova][vms]Preventing VM I/O Errors When Ceph OSD Nodes Go Down
by Thamanna Farhath 08 Mar '26

08 Mar '26

Dear Community, We are running OpenStack 2023.1 with Ceph as the backend storage on a 3-node deployment. Recently, we faced a scenario where two of our servers became unresponsive (hung state), and we had to reboot them. During this time, VMs running on the affected compute node started reporting I/O errors inside the guest OS, such as: [ 33.911093] blk_update_request: I/O error, dev vda, sector 229880 op 0x1:(WRITE) flags 0x800 phys_seg 2 prio class 0 [ 33.914953] Buffer I/O error on dev vda1, logical block 319, lost async page write [ 33.914953] Buffer I/O error on dev vda1, logical block 320, lost async page write [ 33.927594] blk_update_request: I/O error, dev vda, sector 229904 op 0x1:(WRITE) flags 0x800 phys_seg 2 prio class 0 It appears that when Ceph becomes unavailable (or quorum is lost), the VMs continue attempting writes, which results in I/O errors at the guest OS level. Our goal: We would like to prevent guest filesystem corruption or I/O errors when Ceph is down. Ideally, we want to: Pause or block writes from active VMs when Ceph storage is unavailable Avoid guest OS filesystem corruption Ensure safer recovery when Ceph services are restored Disclaimer : The content of this email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and remove the messages from your system. If you are not the named addressee, it is strictly forbidden for you to share, circulate, distribute or copy any part of this e-mail to any third party without the written consent of the sender. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secured or error free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late, incomplete, or may contain viruses. Therefore, we do not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email."

4 8

Re: Update on RDO: A Shift to Containers
by Jose Castro Leon 07 Mar '26

07 Mar '26

We are also heavily affected by this change, as all our deployments at CERN rely on it. Moreover, we are early adopters of RDO and now that we are getting into Epoxy release, it just slips away. The deployment model is not something you can easily change. Does it also mean that our el10 users may never have client libraries packaged to use our setups? And following Massimo remark, will the repo be maintained while it's still in supported status in OpenStack? If not, are you implying that we also need to repackage future security updates? Thanks, Jose CERN Cloud Team ________________________________ From: Massimo Sgaravatto <massimo.sgaravatto(a)gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2026 1:40 PM To: Amy Marrich <amy(a)demarco.com> Cc: RDO Developmen List <dev(a)lists.rdoproject.org>; openstack-discuss <openstack-discuss(a)lists.openstack.org>; users(a)lists.rdoproject.org <users(a)lists.rdoproject.org>; Mike Burns <mburns(a)redhat.com> Subject: Re: Update on RDO: A Shift to Containers A non-negligible impact for our deployment :-( So, as far as I understand, no rpms will be released for the F and G releases, correct? Will you keep releasing updated RPMs for the Epoxy release, while it is in the maintained status, or the repo https://mirror.stream.centos.org/SIGs/9-stream/cloud/x86_64/openstack-epoxy/ will not be updated anymore ? Thanks, Massimo On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 4:19 PM Amy Marrich <amy(a)demarco.com<mailto:amy@demarco.com>> wrote: Dear RDO Community/Stakeholders, This email provides an important update regarding the RDO project and its future direction which marks a significant change in how RDO content will be delivered. End of RDO RPM Builds Historically, RDO provided RPM-based rebuilds of upstream OpenStack packages. Due to insufficient contributors, the continuous RDO rpm builds that were released through the CentOS Cloud SIG have been officially discontinued as of the Epoxy release. Introducing the New RDO: Container Focus The future of RDO will be focused entirely on containers. This is a pivot from our traditional RPM delivery, as RDO did not previously focus on containers. RDO will be transitioning to Source-to-Image (S2I) builds for service containers. This work will be starting shortly within the <http://github.com/openstack-k8s-operators> github.com/openstack-k8s-operators<http://github.com/openstack-k8s-operators> organization, and these new container builds will essentially be the "new RDO". Timeline and Usage: * This transition work has not yet begun. The timeline is not committed, but the work is currently expected to be available for the Hibiscus release in late 2026. The final delivery location of those images is still to be determined. * These containers are primarily intended to be consumed via the operators provided in the openstack-k8s-operators GitHub organization. * While nothing explicitly prevents these containers from being used elsewhere, this is not currently part of the plan. Community involvement and feedback for broader usage are welcome including within OKD and the okderators. * Please note that the operators in this organization are currently only developed and tested on Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform. Thank you for your understanding and continued support as we make this important shift. We look forward to engaging with the community on this new path forward. Sincerely, Amy

4 3

[all] Another day another CI failure
by Brian Haley 06 Mar '26

06 Mar '26

Hi, Started seeing tox failures in pep8/docs/unit and some other jobs: AttributeError: 'Parsed' object has no attribute 'config_format' Melanie Witt provided some info at [0][1], I opened a bug [2] as it seems like it was caused by a recent commit. I would hold rechecks until someone confirms it's fixed. -Brian [0] https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/builds?job_name=openstack-tox-pep8&ski… [1] https://paste.opendev.org/show/bS87fFXvqOKODTRMllg4/ [2] https://github.com/tox-dev/tox/issues/3866

3 4

[release] Release countdown for week R-3
by Thierry Carrez 06 Mar '26

06 Mar '26

Development Focus ----------------- The Release Candidate (RC) deadline is next Thursday, March 12th, 2026. Work should be focused on fixing any release-critical bugs. General Information ------------------- All deliverables released under a cycle-with-rc model should have a first release candidate by the end of the week, from which a stable/2026.1 branch will be cut. This branch will track the 2026.1 "Gazpacho" release. Once stable/2026.1 has been created, the master branch will be ready to switch to 2026.2 "Hibiscus" development. While the master branch will no longer be feature-frozen, please prioritize any work necessary for completing 2026.1 "Gazpacho" plans. Release-critical bugfixes will need to be merged in the master branch first, then backported to the stable/2026.1 branch before a new release candidate can be proposed. Actions ------- Early in the week, the release team will be proposing RC1 patches for all cycle-with-rc projects, using the latest commit from the master branch. If your team is ready to go for cutting RC1, please let us know by leaving a +1 on these patches. If there are still a few more patches needed before RC1, you can -1 the patch and update it later in the week with the new commit hash you would like to use. Remember, stable/2026.1 branches will be created with this, so you will want to make sure you have what you need included to avoid needing to backport changes from the master branch (which will technically then be 2026.2 "Hibiscus") to this stable branch for any additional RCs before the final release. The release team will also be proposing releases for any deliverable following a cycle-with-intermediary model that has not produced any 2026.1 Gazpacho release so far. Finally, now is a good time to finalize release highlights. Release highlights help shape the messaging around the release and make sure that your work is properly represented. Upcoming Deadlines & Dates -------------------------- RC1 deadline: March 12th, 2026 (R-3 week) Final RC deadline: March 26th, 2026 (R-1 week) Final 2026.1 "Gazpacho" release: April 1st, 2026 2026.2 "Hibiscus" (virtual) PTG: April 20-24, 2026 -- Thierry Carrez (ttx)

1 0

OpenStack RPMs
by Francesco Di Nucci 06 Mar '26

06 Mar '26

Hi all, given that RDO will soon stop releasing RPMs of OpenStack, it has been suggested on IRC etc that AlmaLinux and Rocky Linux communities might be interested in building the RPMs instead, is there already a discussion about it? Best regards Francesco Di Nucci -- Francesco Di Nucci System Administrator Compute & Networking Service, INFN Naples Email: francesco.dinucci(a)na.infn.it

1 0

[kolla-ansible][flamingo][horizon] Network creation problem
by Franck VEDEL (UGA) 06 Mar '26

06 Mar '26

Hello everyone, I have a production OpenStack cluster for ESM students running Epoxy, deployed with Kolla-Ansible, and everything is working perfectly. I’m very satisfied with this setup. To prepare for upgrades, I set up a new test cluster in parallel using Kolla-Ansible, but this time with Flamingo. Everything seemed fine until I tried to create a network and its subnet in Horizon. The network is created, but no availability zone is associated with it. As a result, I cannot launch instances on this network. Could this be a change in the new OpenStack installation process that I missed? Or is this a bug? This is the first time I’ve encountered this issue. Is there a parameter that needs to be added in the Horizon override file (_9999-custom-settings.py) to handle this? Thanks in advance for any guidance. Franck VEDEL

2 1

testresources broken with latest fixtures
by Thomas Goirand 06 Mar '26

06 Mar '26

Hi, In its last version of fixtures, the tests folder has been move one directory up. Trying to rebuild testresources, it fails with: ERROR: unittest.loader._FailedTest.testresources.tests.test_test_resource ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ImportError: Failed to import test module: testresources.tests.test_test_resource Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python3.13/unittest/loader.py", line 396, in _find_test_path module = self._get_module_from_name(name) File "/usr/lib/python3.13/unittest/loader.py", line 339, in _get_module_from_name __import__(name) ~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^ File "/build/testresources-nCTnwj/testresources-2.0.2/testresources/tests/test_test_resource.py", line 18, in <module> from fixtures.tests.helpers import LoggingFixture ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'fixtures.tests' This isn't seen downstream, as it's still possible to run latest versions of both fixtures and testresources, only testresources unit testing is broken with lastest fixtures, but I don't think it creates any issue for the users of these 2 libs. However, on the distro level, I'm not sure how to fix this... :/ Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)

2 1

[neutron] multicast and allowed address pairs
by Bence Romsics 06 Mar '26

06 Mar '26

Hi Neutrinos, We have a user who discovered that two neutron backends behave differently when it comes to handling multicast traffic. This user runs servers that need multicast for VRRP coordination (the point is multicast, not VRRP). They discovered that with the (no longer upstream supported) OpenDaylight backend, they need to let the multicast traffic through with an allowed address pair. On the other hand, the ml2/ovs backend (here always assuming the ovs firewall driver) allows the multicast traffic by default. If you add the same allowed address pair (for example: {'mac_address': '01:00:5e:00:00:64', 'ip_address': '224.0.0.100'}) as with OpenDaylight, it actually breaks multicast traffic. The traffic breaks even on other servers, affected by the same set of flows installed by ovs-agent. My question is: which backend behaves correctly? And do we need to change anything upstream? Since I found the following upstream history... https://opendev.org/openstack/neutron/src/branch/master/doc/source/admin/co… https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1889631 ... I believe that ml2/ovs (with the ovs fw driver) behaves correctly when it lets the multicast traffic through by default. However I believe it is a bug that the traffic breaks when the user adds the allowed address pair. But I think it would be pretty pointless to start fixing the traffic itself since we would need to make changes for no effect. Rather we could reject allowed address pairs with multicast IPs/MAC addresses, because that would call the attention of the user that multicast traffic is already handled at a different place (that is the default behavior of the fw driver). I also believe that the OpenDaylight driver is buggy when it does not let the multicast traffic through just like ml2/ovs does. However this is not an upstream problem anymore, since networking-odl is long deprecated. Do you agree in the judgement where the bugs are in this case? The possible upstream change: Do you think we should start rejecting allowed address pairs with multicast IPs/MAC addresses? Plus I guess a doc update for allowed address pairs api-ref is due... If needed, I'm happy to bring this to the drivers meeting. It's 100% that I could attend next Friday (6th of March) and 80% for this Friday (27th of February). Thanks, Bence

3 3

[cinder] festival of reviews friday 2026-03-06
by Brian Rosmaita 06 Mar '26

06 Mar '26

Hello Argonauts, It's the first week of March, which means that the twice monthly Cinder Festival of Reviews will be held at the end of this week on Friday 6 March. who: Everyone! what: The Cinder Festival of Reviews when: Friday 6 March 2026 from 1400-1600 UTC where: videoconf info on the etherpad etherpad: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cinder-festival-of-reviews This recurring meeting, that happens on the first and third Friday of each month, can be placed on your calendar by using this handy ICS file: https://meetings.opendev.org/calendars/cinder-festival-of-reviews.ics See you there!

1 0