- openstack-discuss - lists.openstack.org

[tc][all] OpenStack Technical Committee Weekly Summary and Meeting Agenda (2025.2/R-16)
by Goutham Pacha Ravi 09 Jun '25

09 Jun '25

Hello Stackers, We're 16 weeks away from the date earmarked for the coordinated 2025.2 "Flamingo" release of OpenStack [1]. OpenStack project teams are wrapping up design specifications and gearing up to land feature changes. In the past week, the OpenInfra Foundation officially joined the Linux Foundation [2]. This is a significant move for OpenStack and other projects under the OIF. I join you in hoping that this means greater acceleration for OpenStack and broader avenues to collaborate with other open source projects under the Linux Foundation. In the same week, the OpenStack Technical Committee also passed a few important resolutions. The primary one was to adopt the "Developer Certificate of Origin" [3] for contributor sign-offs beginning July 1, 2025. What does this mean for you? This means that any new patch uploaded to the OpenStack review system (https://review.opendev.org) on or after July 1, 2025, will require a "Signed-off-by" line in the commit message. Doing so indicates that you are submitting this code in adherence to the DCO, which replaces the Contributor License Agreement that we have long required. Adding a DCO sign-off can be done by using "git commit -s" when your username and email are properly configured in your Git environment. The TC encourages PTLs, project liaisons, and all maintainers to help other contributors become familiar with this change and assist anyone who may be confused by the new requirement. If you have any questions, please join us in #openstack-dev or #openstack-tc on OFTC, or ask away on this mailing list. Alongside this significant change, the TC also clarified the actions that the Election Officials will take when there is no need for an election [4]. The next elections for Project Team Leads and a portion of the OpenStack Technical Committee will occur between Aug 27, 2025, and Sep 17, 2025. The official nomination window opens at 23:45 UTC on Aug 06, 2025. However, you're welcome to submit your nomination at any time before this date. Doing so may be helpful if you plan to be away during the nomination window. OpenDev Infrastructure Administrators have now enabled all registered users to add or edit hashtags on the code review system [5]. Some project teams have long found this useful for linking related changes—hashtags in Gerrit are more versatile than topics. I hope you'll find this helpful! === Weekly Meeting === On Jun 3, 2025, the OpenStack Technical Committee held its weekly meeting as both a video conference [6] and over IRC in OFTC's #openstack-tc channel [7]. The meeting was well attended and primarily focused on the DCO (Developer Certificate of Origin) implementation, contributor experience challenges, and other open governance proposals. A key decision was to separate translation-related concerns from the main DCO implementation. The i18n SIG has been migrating from Zanata to Weblate and will explore how the DCO can be prominently enforced via Weblate. The discussion then moved on to the findings from the maintainer and contributor surveys for the Epoxy release cycle. The survey results [8] indicated that 73% of maintainers reported difficulty getting review attention, while 68% of non-maintainer contributors faced challenges in having their reviews completed. TC members brainstormed potential reasons, and some key concerns identified include: - Inconsistent review prioritization across projects - Poor visibility into project-specific review processes - Heavy reliance on Etherpads for tracking priorities - Underutilization of review priority labels in projects that have enabled them A couple of minor action items were identified for the TC and project maintainers. Project maintainers are expected to audit their CONTRIBUTING.rst files and clearly indicate how contributors can get their changes reviewed and merged. The TC also plans to enforce more structured cross-project discussions at the October PTG. As a tangential concern, we supported the idea of hosting an ops meetup at the upcoming OpenInfra Summit in Paris-Saclay [9]. The next meeting of the OpenStack TC is today, 2025-06-09, at 17:00 UTC. This meeting will be held over IRC in the #openstack-tc channel on OFTC. Please find the agenda on the meeting's wiki page [10]. I hope you'll be able to join us. === Governance Proposals === ==== Merged ==== - Replace CLA with DCO for all contributions | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/950463 - Add nova-contrib repository | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/951569 - Clarify actions when no elections are required | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/949431 ==== Open for review ==== - Require declaration of affiliation from TC Candidates | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/949432 === Upcoming Events === - 2025-06-13: CFP Closes for the OpenInfra Summit EU: https://summit2025.openinfra.org/cfp/ - 2025-06-28: OpenInfra+Cloud Native Day, Vietnam: https://www.vietopeninfra.org/void2025 - 2025-07-19: OpenInfra Days Indonesia: https://2025.openinfra.id/ Thank you very much for reading! On behalf of the OpenStack TC, Goutham Pacha Ravi (gouthamr) OpenStack TC Chair [1] 2025.2 "Flamingo" Release Schedule: https://releases.openstack.org/flamingo/schedule.html [2] OIF joins Linux Foundation: https://openinfra.org/blog/openinfra-joins-linux-foundation [3] DCO enforcement from July 1, 2025: https://governance.openstack.org/tc/resolutions/20250520-replace-the-cla-wi… [4] Election amendment: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/949431 [5] Hashtags on review.opendev.org: https://lists.opendev.org/archives/list/service-announce@lists.opendev.org/… [6] TC Meeting Video Recording, 2025-06-03: https://youtu.be/y0BwG8TadVk [7] TC Meeting IRC Log 2025-06-03: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2025/tc.2025-06-03-17.00.html [8] Contributor and Maintainer Survey: https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack… [9] OpenInfra Summit 2025: https://summit2025.openinfra.org/ [10] TC Meeting Agenda, 2025-06-10: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee#Next_Meeting

1 1

[neutron] Neutron BGP integration upstream sync
by Jakub Libosvar 09 Jun '25

09 Jun '25

Hi all, as per the previous suggestions I created the doodle [1] to pick the right time when we could meet. Finding a good timeslot is challenging as I noticed interest from all around the globe (US, EU, Australia). Please vote for which slot fits you best and if anyone has better suggestions, please let me know and let’s discuss. Thanks! Jakub [1] https://doodle.com/group-poll/participate/aK9Nkknd/vote

1 0

Api routes
by engineer2024 09 Jun '25

09 Jun '25

In openstack, is there a feature to list all the available routes for the rest api servers, instead of checking and referring the documentation? Thanks elinux

1 0

[designate] Support for quorum queues
by Thomas Goirand 06 Jun '25

06 Jun '25

Hi, When setting-up Designate with quorum queues, when designate-central starts, I get: Queue.declare: (406) PRECONDITION_FAILED - invalid property 'non-durable' for queue 'central' in vhost '/' Does Designate support quorum queues? If so, how com it's trying to set 'non-durable', which doesn't exist as attribute, at least with RabbitMQ 4.0.5? Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)

6 6

nova.conf : can [pci]alias be multivalued ?
by Michel Jouvin 06 Jun '25

06 Jun '25

Hi, We need to support several GPU models in our Nova configuration. This normally requires to add multiple `alias` entries (lines) in the [pci] section of nova.conf. Unfortunately for us, it complicates a lot the generation of nova.conf by our system configuration management tool (where the section is represented by a dict/hash, meaning that there is only 1 possible entry for 'alias'). Before trying to hack our tool, we were wondering if there is a way to put the different values as a list for a single 'alias' line and what should be the separator or syntax ? I was not able to identify a generic description of the syntax for multivalued parameters, if there is a generic rule. I already found this limitation (but we could live with it) for Keystone [federation]trusted_dashboard for example... Thanks in advance for any hint. Best regards, Michel

3 3

[release] Release countdown for week R-16
by Thierry Carrez 06 Jun '25

06 Jun '25

Development Focus ----------------- The Flamingo-2 milestone will happen in next month, on July 3rd, 2025. 2025.2 Flamingo-related specs should now be finalized so that teams can move to implementation ASAP. Some teams observe specific deadlines on the second milestone (mostly spec freezes): please refer to https://releases.openstack.org/flamingo/schedule.html for details. General Information ------------------- Please remember that libraries need to be released at least once per milestone period. At milestone 2, the release team will propose releases for any library that has not been otherwise released since milestone 1. Other non-library deliverables that follow the cycle-with-intermediary release model should have an intermediary release before milestone-2. Those who haven't will be proposed to switch to the cycle-with-rc model, which is more suited to deliverables that are released only once per cycle. At milestone-2 we also freeze the contents of the final release. If you have a new deliverable that should be included in the final release, you should make sure it has a deliverable file in: https://opendev.org/openstack/releases/src/branch/master/deliverables/flami… You should request a beta release (or intermediary release) for those new deliverables by milestone-2. We understand some may not be quite ready for a full release yet, but if you have something minimally viable to get released it would be good to do a 0.x release to exercise the release tooling for your deliverables. See the MembershipFreeze description for more details: https://releases.openstack.org/flamingo/schedule.html#f-mf Finally, now may be a good time for teams to check on any stable releases that need to be done for your deliverables. If you have bugfixes that have been backported, but no stable release getting those. If you are unsure what is out there committed but not released in the openstack/releases repo, running the command "tools/list_stable_unreleased_changes.sh <cycle_name>" gives a nice report. Upcoming Deadlines & Dates -------------------------- Flamingo-2 Milestone: July 3rd, 2025 -- Thierry Carrez (ttx)

1 0

Networking design for two external networks
by Andrei RADU 06 Jun '25

06 Jun '25

Hello guys, This is obviously a noob question but here goes: We want to link our openstack cloud with the rest of the network with two separate external physical routers, for redundancy. These will also be the BGP peers declared in openstack for advertising internal routes. We could do VRRP and have a shared IP between the two external routers but I understand that if we make a bgp adjacency with a VIP between the two external routers, when this will move from one router to the other in case of failure, there will be a period of outage on the BGP. So in order to avoid that, in openstack we were thinking to have two external provider network vlans, one for each external router, which will handle connectivity with the exterior. What would be the best network design to link the tenant networks to these two networks in a HA mode? Where would be best place to do the “smart” routing to direct the traffic one way or the other. Or is there a more elegant solution? Thank you and sorry if the question is too basic or too general, hopefully if someone used this design can share their experience. All the best, Andrei <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-pictet-group" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/pictetgroup/" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://twitter.com/PictetGroup" target="_blank"></a> This message is not intended for persons who are citizens of, domiciled or resident in, or entities registered in a country or jurisdiction in which its distribution, publication, provision or use would violate current laws and regulations. The content of this message is confidential and may be read and/or used only by the recipient of this message. For information about personal data protection, please refer to the Pictet Group’s Privacy Notice available at www.pictet.com/privacynotice. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please destroy it and delete it from your computer. The Pictet Group may not be held liable for the use, transmission or treatment of the content of this message. The recipient of this message remains solely liable for any form of reproduction, copying, disclosure, modification and/or publication of the content. No liability whatsoever will be incurred by the Pictet Group. The recipient of this message agrees to comply with the applicable laws and regulations in the jurisdictions where they use the information contained herein.<br>

1 0

[nova] Information Sharing for Arm CCA Feature (Following 4/8 PTG)
by taketani.ryo＠fujitsu.com 06 Jun '25

06 Jun '25

Thank you for the productive discussion about Arm CCA feature [1] at the PTG on April 8th. > The use case for Arm CCA looks ok. But it is a bit early. It is wise to wait at least libvirt / qemu release to have a "stable" code. > We may want to have a OS distribution version (such as Ubuntu XX.YY) which supports Arm CCA so that users can actually use/test the feature The above information is quoted from the PTG Etherpad [2](L316) summary. I'd like to follow up on these points. I'd like to share relevant information about Arm CCA surrounding components (libvirt, QEMU, OS Distributions(e.g., Ubuntu xx.xx), hardware) as it becomes available, and proceed with the discussion step by step.. I'm starting with this email, but if there's a more appropriate method for sharing this type of information, please let me know. Here's the Arm CCA software components information I can share at this time: * Linux Kernel: The roadmap is outlined on the fifth page of the third attachment in this link [3]. The initial commits I've proposed to OpenStack are focused on RMM 1.0. KVM host support for RMM 1.0 will be available in H2 2025. * QEMU Upstream Status: The development is in-progress, awaiting the Linux Kernel merge * libvirt Upstream Status: The development is in-progress, awaiting the QEMU merge * OS Distribution Support: The road map is not clear now > We may want to have a OS distribution version (such as Ubuntu XX.YY) which supports Arm CCA so that users can actually use/test the feature I have a question regarding the above. For design discussions leading to spec approval, I understand that upstream QEMU/libvirt stable release is necessary. Is a specific OS distribution release (e.g., Ubuntu xx.xx) also required for spec approval? [1] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/938276 [2] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-2025.2-ptg [3] https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/archives/list/tsc@lists.trustedfirmware.o… Regards, Ryo Taketani

2 5

[cinder] Volume to Image Upload with Multi-Store Backends (Cinder + Glance)
by Maximilian Stinsky-Damke 06 Jun '25

06 Jun '25

Greetings, I'm in the process of setting up a new OpenStack deployment where both Cinder and Glance are configured with multiple Ceph-based backends using the multi-store functionality. Basic operations (create, delete, snapshot, upload, etc.) work fine for each store in both services. However, I'm encountering issues when trying to upload a Cinder volume to Glance as an image in this setup. My understanding is that when the volume type does not include image_service:store_id, Cinder should upload the image to the default Glance store. However, in my case, this upload fails with the following error: ERROR oslo_messaging.rpc.server FileNotFoundError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/etc/ceph/ceph.client.cinder.keyring' I'm having trouble understanding why Cinder is trying to access this particular keyring. Each of my Cinder backends has its own Ceph config and keyring pointing to the appropriate cluster, and everything else works correctly. Here are my specific questions: 1. Should Cinder not be uploading the volume to Glance via the API, without needing direct access to the Glance Ceph store? 2. If Cinder is expected to access the Glance backend directly (e.g., to optimize data movement), how does it determine which Ceph config and keyring to use? 3. Is there any documentation or configuration guidance available on how to tell Cinder which credentials to use when interacting with Glance stores? Any insights or pointers would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Max

1 0

[CINDER] Abandon old patches
by Harsh Ailani 06 Jun '25

06 Jun '25

Hi reviewers, Some of my team members are no longer contributors and have left the company as well. I need to abandon a few active patches which they raised earlier. How do I abandon someone else's patches? Patches to be abandoned: 871257: [SVf] Adding support of clone operation for volumegroup | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/871257 880518: [SVf] Adding support of extend operation for volumegroup | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/880518 869999: Allow Volume Migration with additional extra specs to enter driver code | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/869999 Thanks and Regards, Harsh Ailani

2 2