| -opendevstatus- NOTICE: zuul processing is broken since about 03:00 UTC, investigation is in progress, please be patient | 08:03 | |
| *** tobias-u1 is now known as tobias-urdin | 08:19 | |
| tobias-urdin | do we have any timeframe when OSSN 110-112 can be processed? | 08:19 |
|---|---|---|
| *** mikal0 is now known as mikal | 08:57 | |
| d34dh0r53 | any security sessions planned for the PTG? | 12:50 |
| gouthamr | https://launchpad.net/zaqar/2161402 is now public | 14:08 |
| tkajinam | I assume bugs.launchpad.net/zaqar/+bug/2161402 is the correct link | 14:10 |
| tkajinam | fix and its backports have been proposed. fingers crossed | 14:13 |
| gouthamr | d’oh, yes it is. Ty for the correction tkajinam | 14:13 |
| opendevreview | Goutham Pacha Ravi proposed openstack/ossa master: Add OSSA-2026-043 (CVE-2026-pending) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ossa/+/1009265 | 14:52 |
| opendevreview | Goutham Pacha Ravi proposed openstack/ossa master: Add OSSA-2026-043 (CVE-2026-pending) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ossa/+/1009265 | 14:53 |
| gouthamr | https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/2165281 is now public | 14:57 |
| gouthamr | JayF: rosmaita: can you please help with https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ossa/+/1009265 | 15:16 |
| JayF | on it | 15:16 |
| JayF | gouthamr: all those patches are W-1, which is concerning? | 15:18 |
| tkajinam | JayF, there are a few unit test failures I'm fixing now | 15:19 |
| JayF | gouthamr: +2 with that concern noted, please self-approve or ask me to if you want it in with one review :) | 15:19 |
| JayF | tkajinam: ack, sgtm :) Thank you! | 15:20 |
| tkajinam | many of these unit tests require mongodb running locally which I can't make working in my env easily after I bumped fedora version in my local | 15:20 |
| tkajinam | I'll update the backports once I get the master fix passing CI ... | 15:20 |
| rosmaita | i'm looking now | 15:20 |
| JayF | makes sense, I appreciate you helping zaqar team | 15:21 |
| JayF | well, IDK if you work on it usually, but I see your name everywhere so I assume you are a nomad, roving from project to project in the stack ;) | 15:22 |
| gouthamr | ty :) tkajinam is actually ten nomads | 15:25 |
| rosmaita | ok approved | 15:26 |
| gouthamr | ty rosmaita JayF.. tkajinam: i can wait a bit in case there're any more fixes | 15:27 |
| JayF | let me know when zaqar is done. We found an Ironic bug that was class A, CVE assigned, patch fixed that never got advisoried (only about a week), so I'm going to get that posted up today but don't wanna conflict with any numbers | 15:34 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/ossa master: Add OSSA-2026-043 (CVE-2026-pending) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ossa/+/1009265 | 16:00 |
| fungi | per tobias-urdin's question earlier, should we go ahead and merge/announce the pending ossns today too now that we're between release week and ptg week? | 16:35 |
| fungi | JayF: tkajinam is officially a security liaison (also release lisison) for zaqar in this particular case, in addition to all the amazing nomad work elsewhere | 16:36 |
| gouthamr | i think https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/security-doc/+/1002392 isn't ready. xek meant to update it with fixes for https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/2165281 | 16:37 |
| gouthamr | i think tobias could re-number and we can work with xek on the keystone batch | 16:38 |
| fungi | i think core reviewers can also take it on ourselves to renumber/resequence publications and then just infer conveyance of prior approvals/agreements in the trivial renumbering revisions | 16:42 |
| opendevreview | Jay Faulkner proposed openstack/ossa master: Be more specific, and less restrictive, about dates https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ossa/+/1009314 | 16:42 |
| gouthamr | fungi: that works for me.. | 16:44 |
| gouthamr | tobias-urdin: are you around for minor tweaks? if not, we'll assume you're okay with our changes | 16:44 |
| tkajinam | I've fixed up the fix and its backport. it takes some time until CI completes so I'll keep these open hoping that Hao can take a look. I'll throw these to gate when I start the day | 17:21 |
| gouthamr | tkajinam: \o/ great, ty for fixing up the tests | 17:22 |
| gouthamr | i'll send the emails now | 17:22 |
| * gouthamr higher latency, much distractions | 18:00 | |
| gouthamr | sent emails now :| | 18:00 |
| JayF | are the planned advisories for today complete? | 18:01 |
| JayF | I need to publish an OSSA for Ironic but was staying clear since it's not an embargo one, I just need to run the paperwork | 18:02 |
| gouthamr | JayF: yes! | 18:02 |
| JayF | cool, I'll get the paperwork done after lunch | 18:04 |
| fungi | https://bugs.launchpad.net/zaqar/+bug/2028876 is now public | 18:12 |
| fungi | gouthamr: i just noticed the ossa-2026-043 announcement was sitting in the moderation queue, i've accepted it now, sorry for the delay | 18:20 |
| opendevreview | Goutham Pacha Ravi proposed openstack/ossa master: OSSA-2026-043: Errata 1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ossa/+/1009359 | 20:24 |
| fungi | gouthamr: see comment re: reported addition | 20:25 |
| gouthamr | fungi: not a problem at all, i wasn't fast enough myself. I just got a CVE assignment | 20:25 |
| gouthamr | ah! doing | 20:26 |
| opendevreview | Goutham Pacha Ravi proposed openstack/ossa master: OSSA-2026-043: Errata 1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ossa/+/1009359 | 20:28 |
| opendevreview | Jay Faulkner proposed openstack/ossa master: OSSA-2026-044: Ironic image server basic auth leakage https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ossa/+/1009362 | 20:51 |
| fungi | looking at that one, i wonder if we're just not consistently adding the "reported" references to reporters in these at all. should we re-think them? | 20:54 |
| JayF | I was told, when originally doing these, that we only use `reported` when the implied "these people/this person reported [all of this]" was not accurate | 20:55 |
| gouthamr | I’ve missed it for single CVE advisories - but wasn’t thinking too hard | 20:55 |
| JayF | ^^ no rush, but that OSSA will need to be revised if I can't announce it today :) | 20:56 |
| fungi | i don't have a preference either way, to be perfectly honest | 21:02 |
| gouthamr | JayF: this requires operator action, correct? | 21:03 |
| gouthamr | "Adds a new [deploy]image_server_auth_permit_unknown_hosts boolean | 21:03 |
| gouthamr | option (default True). When True and image_server_auth_hosts is | 21:03 |
| gouthamr | not configured, credentials are sent to all hosts preserving | 21:03 |
| gouthamr | existing behavior." | 21:03 |
| fungi | "reported" does make sense for multi-reporter multi-cve advisories, we could come up with a rule that we skip it as implied it if there's either only one cve or only one reporter (or even adjust our tooling to infer the value in those cases) | 21:04 |
| gouthamr | so the code fix is required to harden this, but, the hardening isn't out of the box | 21:04 |
| fungi | if a configuration change has to be made to enable a security fix behavior, we've usually done an ossn instead of ossa | 21:05 |
| gouthamr | +1, feels like this is one of those cases - i can comment on the advisory | 21:05 |
| fungi | if a configuration option is added to allow disabling a security fix/behavior change, that's been ossa | 21:06 |
| JayF | ack; that's a reasonable piece of feedback | 21:08 |
| JayF | I'll remodel it to an OSSN | 21:08 |
| gouthamr | ++ | 21:08 |
| fungi | can we go ahead and renumber the outstanding ossn changes in that case? | 21:09 |
| gouthamr | crap, did i post at all on tobias-urdin's? | 21:09 |
| JayF | do ... yeah I was about to ask that | 21:09 |
| gouthamr | just did | 21:09 |
| gouthamr | i can fix it up for him | 21:10 |
| JayF | so should I take 0114 | 21:10 |
| fungi | the lowest-numbered one "needs more work" and all the others are backed up behind that | 21:10 |
| fungi | so we should probably renumber it to ossn-tbd or something and shift the rest forward by 1 | 21:10 |
| JayF | I've not read a policy that says we have to do them in order, fwiw, we have some that were skipped in the past as they didn't pass review | 21:10 |
| gouthamr | yeah, xek ^ sorry for the latency, but this is it.. the EC2 OSSN will take the most amount of time to perfect, so we'll be renumbering and publishing whatever is ready | 21:10 |
| JayF | not saying I *like* that, but just noting I think we're choosing to do it | 21:11 |
| JayF | so are you saying I should do -0109 if my intention is to get this over the line today? | 21:11 |
| fungi | fair enough, we could also just reserve the number for the keystone one that's still a draft, just might get confusing if we announce them out of sequence | 21:11 |
| JayF | I think it's good to make them be in order since we don't sort by date in the index | 21:12 |
| JayF | but just pointing out nothing says we *have* to | 21:12 |
| JayF | and in a case where we had a bunch we knew were gonna land within days, we shouldn't bother imo | 21:12 |
| JayF | this is not that case, I think? | 21:12 |
| gouthamr | we should imho, do my comments in https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/security-doc/+/1007657 make sense? if they do, i can just make these tweaks | 21:12 |
| gouthamr | if they don't, JayF by all means, prep -0109 if you're ready to | 21:13 |
| JayF | I'm going to do 0109 literally right now | 21:13 |
| JayF | with the intention of announcing before my EOD in <2 hours | 21:13 |
| fungi | current 0109 needs more work, 0110-0113 are probably fine to go ahead (or at least 0110-0112) | 21:13 |
| JayF | if we need to line it up, I can pick a number and aim for tomorrow | 21:13 |
| fungi | we just held off publishing them during release week | 21:13 |
| JayF | but I just have been aiming at OSSA so haven't thought about this at all | 21:13 |
| JayF | ahh | 21:13 |
| JayF | of course | 21:13 |
| fungi | the idea was to merge/announce them between release week and ptg week, i think | 21:14 |
| gouthamr | it was, yes, and we got busy | 21:14 |
| JayF | I'm ok with whatever pattern we wanna do and I am OK to not jump the line if one exists | 21:15 |
| JayF | primarily just want clarity, and I'm willing to do the edits if needed to get it | 21:15 |
| JayF | e.g. if we are all saying x, y, z are ready, and just need renumeration and announcements | 21:15 |
| JayF | I can do that | 21:15 |
| JayF | I just haven't been contexted on any of this so will be mostly trusting existing reviews :) | 21:15 |
| fungi | context has been mainly inferential | 21:16 |
| JayF | gouthamr: +1 to those comments, you wanna make those changes or should I? What other OSSNs are next? | 21:17 |
| fungi | i can go through quickly and renumber 0110-0113 to 0109-0112 | 21:18 |
| fungi | and then start approving | 21:18 |
| fungi | and set the date on them all to today | 21:19 |
| JayF | gouthamr's comment on 112 says to make it 0109 | 21:19 |
| JayF | so as long as edits don't cross streams | 21:19 |
| JayF | I am very +1 | 21:19 |
| gouthamr | okay, tweaking locally to push it out | 21:19 |
| fungi | i'll preserve the existing order just shift them all up by 1 | 21:19 |
| JayF | I am going to AFK for 20 minutes to walk the dog, I can review when I get back (or just tell me what to do next and I will do the thing) | 21:19 |
| fungi | oh, sounds like there's more than one of us editing these changes in this case. i'll pause | 21:20 |
| gouthamr | oh wait, reads what fungi is up to | 21:20 |
| gouthamr | :P i was just going to swap 0109 and 0112 :) | 21:20 |
| gouthamr | i.e., gnocchi is ready | 21:20 |
| gouthamr | (and about dinnertime?) | 21:20 |
| fungi | it sounds like we expect the proposed ossn-0110 through ossn-0113 to be ready to merge at this point, just not the existing ossn-0109? | 21:21 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/ossa master: OSSA-2026-043: Errata 1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ossa/+/1009359 | 21:21 |
| gouthamr | fungi: i could not, honestly read the ballads in 0110 and 0111 to confirm that | 21:21 |
| gouthamr | for one, i have a problem with the affects versions saying : "Everything after rocky is affected" | 21:22 |
| gouthamr | unhelpful :( | 21:22 |
| fungi | i looked at it as we're just publishing whatever the project maintainers are asking to be published, i haven't historically done close scrutiny on ossn changes because they're not held to the same standard as advisories | 21:22 |
| gouthamr | xek, could you beat at your LLM to make this human parseable? and align the versions-affected to a string please like we do OSSAs (and recent OSSNs)? | 21:23 |
| gouthamr | well i'm hoping to change that a bit, now that we've started caring and feeding this system a bit more | 21:23 |
| fungi | i didn't approve the current ossn-0109 because there's a -1 vote on it, but the others are passing ci jobs | 21:24 |
| fungi | and haven't received negative code review votes | 21:24 |
| gouthamr | i bet consumers would appreciate the alignment.. i understand some notes will be long, but they could _try_ to be succinct and hence informative | 21:24 |
| fungi | (this is also why i preferred security notes to have a separate set of reviewers, i didn't really expect us to inherit that responsibility) | 21:25 |
| fungi | "us" meaning the vmt | 21:25 |
| gouthamr | :P | 21:26 |
| fungi | from my perspective, ossn was a way to help people who wanted to publish something feel like they could even if it didn't qualify for an advisory, in reality these are all things i would have simply rejected in the past and moved on | 21:26 |
| fungi | specifically due to lack of bandwidth | 21:27 |
| fungi | so adopting a low-effort "approve it if passes tests and nobody objects" approach was about the only way i could justify reviewing them once there was nobody left to do so | 21:27 |
| gouthamr | yeah, but imagine us sending a 306 line security announcement to oss-security :( | 21:28 |
| gouthamr | that's raw lines in the source, whatever that is in its rst form | 21:29 |
| fungi | good point, i also wasn't sending them to mailing lists | 21:29 |
| fungi | because they weren't security advisories | 21:29 |
| fungi | the way i looked at it, the authors of those articles could announce them if they wanted, and we provided a recommended list of places to do so | 21:30 |
| JayF | fungi: Yeah, there is no second group of people now. And making OSSAs and OSSNs more alike will lower our workload in the longer term. | 21:30 |
| fungi | i mean, it doesn't lower our workload compared to ignoring them | 21:30 |
| fungi | which was essentially what we did in years past | 21:31 |
| opendevreview | Tobias Urdin proposed openstack/security-doc master: OSSN-0109: Add security note for Gnocchi GHSA-cjq3-6hm7-q33w https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/security-doc/+/1007657 | 21:32 |
| JayF | From a downstream perspective, ignoring them upstream was creating work, even if it was our work. I think that's maybe what goutham and I are seeing. The wordy OSSNs cause a lot of pain downstream that is attributed to OpenStack not having their security ducks in order | 21:32 |
| gouthamr | tobias-urdin: \o/ | 21:33 |
| JayF | An OSSN is a professional output of the security apparatus of OpenStack, and there's no set of disclaimers we can add that will change that perception | 21:33 |
| JayF | That being said: I 100% agree with that as being the correct thing to do when it was basically just you keeping the lights on on your own. | 21:34 |
| tobias-urdin | gouthamr: thx! midnight here so closing down for today :) | 21:34 |
| gouthamr | sigh; ty for noticing - we'll make any further tweaks if at all necessary, goodnight! | 21:35 |
| fungi | i basically can't commit to reviewing lengthy ossn articles for accuracy, nor am i really keen on sending copies of them places myself. i can keep leaving a -1 on anything longer than 4 sentences but that's probably unhelpful | 21:37 |
| JayF | I think that's more helpful than maybe you realize lol | 21:38 |
| *** priteau_ is now known as priteau | 21:38 | |
| JayF | Especially in context of OSSA. And I say that as someone who always wants to write an entire book. | 21:38 |
| JayF | I suspect some of these very long OSSNs likely need to be a documentation page in the project that gets linked to, turning our announcement into a summary and pointer | 21:40 |
| fungi | as an operator of lots of software in production that i'm responsible for keeping security updates applied on, i know i personally don't want to read more than 4 sentences. i mostly just need to know whether my systems are likely vulnerable to a given defect and what might happen if i don't apply the fix for it | 21:40 |
| fungi | our ossa template covers those bits, plus crediting the reporter | 21:41 |
| gouthamr | Yes, and i can add more examples (latest from downstream RH) where people appreciate our work around writing down the impact description in a way humans can grok | 21:41 |
| gouthamr | i learned that "art of brevity" here for free :P | 21:41 |
| JayF | gouthamr: so I take 110? | 21:42 |
| gouthamr | JayF: i think so, we okay with 0109? | 21:43 |
| JayF | 👀 | 21:43 |
| JayF | if anything, I wonder why it's not an OSSA | 21:43 |
| gouthamr | JayF: push today, and publish today? or tomorrow? i ask because i naively told tobias to use tomorrow's date | 21:43 |
| JayF | there's no recommended action beyond "apply the patches" | 21:44 |
| gouthamr | JayF: gnocchi isn't an openstack deliverable | 21:44 |
| JayF | gouthamr: this is one that is weeks late already, IDC about doing it tomorrow just may need a poke to remember if I squirrel on something else lol | 21:44 |
| gouthamr | poke the squirrel, got it | 21:46 |
| fungi | yes, gnocchi is an openstack dependency, they published their own security advisory and the ossn is (in theory, i haven't had time to read) reminding openstack operators that there's a gnoccho advisory they should go read in case it impacts their deployments | 21:55 |
| opendevreview | Jay Faulkner proposed openstack/security-doc master: OSSN-0110: Ironic image server + basic auth https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/security-doc/+/1009383 | 21:55 |
| fungi | we've said in the past that having an ossn about a vulnerability in a widely-deployed openstack dependency can be appropriate | 21:55 |
| JayF | gouthamr: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/security-doc/+/1007657/5#message-4c76e757209d066829d74782a7543fcd03fc7a5e | 21:56 |
| JayF | fungi: I agree, I was confused by that and ^ is saying maybe we should be explicit about it in the OSSN | 21:56 |
| JayF | note the comment came with a +1 so I'm OK if it merges without it | 21:57 |
| JayF | this may be a case where being openstack-brained leads one to be *more* likely to be confused, so I'm the weird case lol | 21:57 |
| fungi | i wouldn't even say gnocchi is "no longer" an openstack deliverable, it left openstack so many years ago that the fact it ever was part of openstack is long past relevance | 21:58 |
| fungi | it's merely another dependency | 21:59 |
| gouthamr | ah | 21:59 |
| gouthamr | okay, can do | 21:59 |
| * gouthamr thinks this through | 22:01 | |
| gouthamr | the template doesn't have a "notes" section.. | 22:01 |
| JayF | I'd just make the comment in discussion then | 22:02 |
| JayF | similar to how I did in Ironic to note it generally only impacts standalone configs | 22:02 |
| JayF | "This vulnerability was originally disclosed by the gnocchi upstream [link] in GHSA [link] | 22:03 |
| JayF | might even do the trick (/me hands past me a ") | 22:03 |
| fungi | wfm | 22:04 |
| opendevreview | Goutham Pacha Ravi proposed openstack/security-doc master: OSSN-0109: Add security note for Gnocchi GHSA-cjq3-6hm7-q33w https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/security-doc/+/1007657 | 22:05 |
| gouthamr | take a look please ^ | 22:05 |
| fungi | on it | 22:05 |
| gouthamr | i tweaked the date to get this out today too | 22:06 |
| fungi | lgtm | 22:06 |
| JayF | I have pending comments | 22:06 |
| JayF | please wait | 22:06 |
| gouthamr | ack | 22:07 |
| JayF | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/security-doc/+/1007657/6#message-21a6e6f223f63b8de5841649f32d8c1e027d33de | 22:07 |
| JayF | there's about a 5% chance that syntax is 100% right | 22:07 |
| fungi | hah | 22:07 |
| fungi | details details | 22:08 |
| JayF | I am going to review OSSN-0110 with fresh eyes, I already found two major obvious problems | 22:09 |
| JayF | so going to wait until the morning to publish anyway | 22:09 |
| gouthamr | JayF: why link inline? it looks ugly in the rst render too? the link is in the references below | 22:09 |
| gouthamr | i could use the GHSA number if it works better.. | 22:10 |
| fungi | worth noting the syntax used in the comment is some bastardization of how you'd do an anonymous link if you have link text for it | 22:10 |
| JayF | I don't think the line you added had enough specificity. We link nowhere to the actual gnocchi upstream, and I don't want to ask folks to google their actual upstream | 22:10 |
| JayF | I care mainly about making sure users reading that OSSN know the correct upstream for gnocchi | 22:11 |
| JayF | and I think the "Github advisory" link with no context is just confusing without that added context | 22:11 |
| fungi | if you don't have link text, raw hyperlinks in the prose get linked in the rendered version anyway without any special markup | 22:11 |
| JayF | fungi: people who write guides on how to write RST should put that in like, triple-bold :| | 22:11 |
| fungi | https://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/master/usage/restructuredtext/basics.html#hyperlinks | 22:11 |
| * JayF knew that but did't think about it | 22:11 | |
| fungi | "URLs and email addresses in text are automatically linked and do not need explicit markup at all." | 22:12 |
| fungi | very first sentence | 22:12 |
| opendevreview | Goutham Pacha Ravi proposed openstack/security-doc master: OSSN-0109: Add security note for Gnocchi GHSA-cjq3-6hm7-q33w https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/security-doc/+/1007657 | 22:12 |
| JayF | :| | 22:12 |
| gouthamr | ^ wdyt? | 22:12 |
| JayF | +2, specific enough for me | 22:12 |
| gouthamr | oh wait | 22:13 |
| fungi | JayF: to be fair, the sentence isn't in bold in that official guide on how to write rst ;) | 22:13 |
| gouthamr | link doesn't resolve :| | 22:13 |
| JayF | fungi: I am too far down the rabbithole to find the real truth, which is that I likely was using some syntax guide that wins at SEO but not at being official | 22:14 |
| opendevreview | Goutham Pacha Ravi proposed openstack/security-doc master: OSSN-0109: Add security note for Gnocchi GHSA-cjq3-6hm7-q33w https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/security-doc/+/1007657 | 22:14 |
| gouthamr | sorry man, i copy-pasted without sending this through my brain | 22:14 |
| fungi | but yeah, whenever i have a question about rst syntax for sphinx, i use that official usage guide | 22:15 |
| fungi | maybe i just have questions about rst syntax too often, so actually remember where to look up the answers | 22:15 |
| JayF | links in RST are always what gets me | 22:15 |
| JayF | I can remember how to even do a table off the dome, but I mess up links 10 times outta 10 | 22:16 |
| fungi | they are somewhat esoteric, at least if they aren't raw inline links anyway | 22:16 |
| JayF | [What's wrong with](markdown.links) :( | 22:16 |
| JayF | best link syntax ever | 22:16 |
| fungi | speaking of rst syntax, i think the affected versions section is mixing up data types | 22:20 |
| fungi | it looks like it was meant to be a bullet list, but is probably going to be a string literal | 22:20 |
| fungi | my guess is that the trailing `|` on `affected-services: |` wasn't supposed to be there | 22:21 |
| fungi | though i guess that's a yaml syntax problem not rst | 22:22 |
| opendevreview | Jay Faulkner proposed openstack/security-doc master: OSSN-0110: Ironic image server + basic auth https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/security-doc/+/1009383 | 22:24 |
| opendevreview | Jay Faulkner proposed openstack/security-doc master: OSSN-0110: Ironic image server + basic auth https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/security-doc/+/1009383 | 22:27 |
| fungi | and the result was that yaml interprets that as a string followed by a bullet list, not just a continuation of the string | 22:33 |
| fungi | so the `|` was merely ignored | 22:33 |
| gouthamr | ^ that was a head-scratcher.. | 22:34 |
| fungi | i assume it was there in error, but was ultimately benign | 22:35 |
| gouthamr | ++ | 22:35 |
| * gouthamr preps emails | 22:35 | |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/security-doc master: OSSN-0109: Add security note for Gnocchi GHSA-cjq3-6hm7-q33w https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/security-doc/+/1007657 | 22:36 |
| fungi | JayF: just to confirm, based both off discussion here in the last few minutes and also the revised date field, ossn-0110 in 1009383 is planned to go tomorrow? | 22:36 |
| JayF | yes. I missed three obvious things in a row | 22:37 |
| JayF | which means it needs a fresh brain review, and I might nudge ironic folks to look as well | 22:37 |
| JayF | I wanted to get it done today, but you can't always get what you want (but if you try you might get what you need) | 22:37 |
| opendevreview | Jay Faulkner proposed openstack/security-doc master: OSSN-0110: Ironic image server + basic auth https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/security-doc/+/1009383 | 22:41 |
| fungi | JayF: is what you need a good night's sleep? ;) | 22:42 |
| gouthamr | emails sent for gnocchi | 22:42 |
| JayF | fungi: it's the early school year; usually I get a cold. My wife got hers. I got like, 20% of a cold smeared over 2 weeks. I slept well for the first time in a week last night. So maybe just pluralize that lol | 22:44 |
| JayF | (my wife teaches middle school so she is the designated plague carrier in the family) | 22:44 |
| fungi | in that case, good luck! | 22:44 |
| *** mrunge_ is now known as mrunge | 23:41 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 4.1.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!