| gouthamr | tc-members: a gentle reminder that our weekly meeting will be hosted here in ~50 minutes. Please see the agenda here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee#Agenda | 16:10 |
|---|---|---|
| opendevreview | Goutham Pacha Ravi proposed openstack/governance master: pti: Remove Go doc https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/989189 | 16:58 |
| *** ildikov_ is now known as ildikov | 16:59 | |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/governance master: Retire Venus Project https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/981959 | 16:59 |
| gouthamr | #startmeeting tc | 17:01 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Tue Jun 16 17:01:08 2026 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is gouthamr. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 17:01 |
| opendevmeet | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 17:01 |
| opendevmeet | The meeting name has been set to 'tc' | 17:01 |
| gouthamr | Welcome to the weekly meeting of the OpenStack Technical Committee. A reminder that this meeting is held under the OpenInfra Code of Conduct available at https://openinfra.dev/legal/code-of-conduct. | 17:01 |
| gouthamr | Today's meeting agenda can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee#Agenda | 17:01 |
| gouthamr | #topic Roll Call | 17:01 |
| frickler | \o | 17:02 |
| dansmith | o/ | 17:03 |
| cardoe | o/ | 17:03 |
| gouthamr | courtesy-ping: noonedeadpunk, spotz[m], mnasiadka, bauzas | 17:03 |
| gouthamr | o/ cardoe i had noted you away | 17:03 |
| mnasiadka | o/ | 17:04 |
| cardoe | I’m finally back. | 17:04 |
| gouthamr | great, welcome back | 17:04 |
| noonedeadpunk | o/ | 17:04 |
| noonedeadpunk | why I don't see startmeeting? | 17:04 |
| gouthamr | you don't? | 17:04 |
| dansmith | I see it | 17:04 |
| noonedeadpunk | ok, then it's smth with bouncer I guess | 17:04 |
| noonedeadpunk | nvm | 17:05 |
| gouthamr | let's get started.. thanks for joining | 17:05 |
| gouthamr | #topic Last Week's Action Items | 17:05 |
| gouthamr | we didn't meet last week, so we'll check on pending stuff from the last couple of weeks | 17:06 |
| gouthamr | noonedeadpunk / mnasiadka: you folks were working on a galaxy publish role in openstack-zuul-jobs - anything to share about this? | 17:06 |
| spotz[m] | o/ | 17:06 |
| noonedeadpunk | I somehow lost the track on point of pushing a tag | 17:07 |
| noonedeadpunk | ah | 17:07 |
| noonedeadpunk | okay, sorry, this is a different thing | 17:07 |
| noonedeadpunk | no, not really. Let me re-propose the patch right away | 17:07 |
| gouthamr | ack, ty.. | 17:08 |
| noonedeadpunk | I was hopeful that it will be accepted in zuul tbh | 17:08 |
| mnasiadka | Wasn’t it in zuul/zuul-jobs? | 17:08 |
| noonedeadpunk | as I kinda need it in other places where I have zuul running ) | 17:08 |
| noonedeadpunk | mnasiadka: yes, but it was said it's not gonna be merged as nobody cares about ansible galaxy | 17:09 |
| mnasiadka | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/zuul/zuul-jobs/+/899230 | 17:09 |
| gouthamr | ty for the link | 17:09 |
| noonedeadpunk | so as alternative I should propose it to openstack-zuul-jobs | 17:09 |
| mnasiadka | Oh well | 17:09 |
| gouthamr | i guess its fine where it is, if zuul maintainers are okay | 17:09 |
| fungi | not quite how i phrased it, but basically i said if it's important to openstack's use case we can incorporate it into openstack/openstack-zuul-jobs rather than waiting for enough zuul/zuul-jobs maintainers to care | 17:09 |
| noonedeadpunk | nah, but it was the gist of coversation back then :) | 17:10 |
| gouthamr | do some lobbying :) | 17:10 |
| gouthamr | an update on retirements, the venus retirement patch has now merged in openstack/governance. we're now left with the tail end of the cleanup: openstack map, documentation etc.. it's good to close out on this prior to M-2.. ty for driving this noonedeadpunk | 17:11 |
| gouthamr | the vitrage deprecation patch is WIP | 17:11 |
| noonedeadpunk | I am waiting for https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/982878 | 17:12 |
| gouthamr | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/981959 (Retire Venus Project) | 17:12 |
| gouthamr | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/982869 (Deprecate vitrage project) | 17:12 |
| noonedeadpunk | as zuul jobs should be dropped before I can drop content I believe | 17:12 |
| gouthamr | ack, fungi or frickler can help perhaps | 17:12 |
| noonedeadpunk | unless I made some mistake | 17:12 |
| fungi | looking | 17:13 |
| noonedeadpunk | as I'd expect it to pass | 17:13 |
| noonedeadpunk | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/vitrage/+/992488 | 17:13 |
| noonedeadpunk | (with depends-on) | 17:13 |
| gouthamr | it doesn't work that way, i learned | 17:13 |
| fungi | right now 982878 has a depends-on to a governance change | 17:13 |
| gouthamr | oh | 17:14 |
| gouthamr | it shouldn't | 17:14 |
| noonedeadpunk | it should? | 17:14 |
| noonedeadpunk | #link https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/repository.html#deprecating-a-repository | 17:14 |
| noonedeadpunk | Step1 - govbernance patch | 17:14 |
| gouthamr | i see | 17:14 |
| fungi | to be clear, i wasn't making a value judgement about whether or not it should have a depends-on, just that as it stands currently it can't merge until the governance change does | 17:15 |
| fungi | because of the depends-on it has in the commit message trailers | 17:15 |
| gouthamr | hmm, pickle | 17:15 |
| noonedeadpunk | If we think order is wrong, I can of propose also updatre of the process | 17:15 |
| gouthamr | no wait, i think your thought about this is correct | 17:16 |
| gouthamr | you can't empty the main branch and then wait on a governance decision to deprecate | 17:16 |
| gouthamr | that would be weird, if the governance decision is negative, you'd have to undo the code removal | 17:16 |
| gouthamr | i'll take back my comment.. can you please address the other two issues on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/982869 | 17:17 |
| gouthamr | we can fast-track this if folks agree once that's done | 17:17 |
| gouthamr | specific comment: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/982869/comments/cf7fc70e_b840154e | 17:18 |
| noonedeadpunk | aha, I was a bit puzzled which one you was talking about | 17:19 |
| noonedeadpunk | will do | 17:19 |
| gouthamr | thanks noonedeadpunk | 17:19 |
| gouthamr | moving on.. please expect an email from me shortly regarding extended absences on the TC.. i don't think it's ripe yet for a public discussion. | 17:20 |
| gouthamr | i mean, its totally fine to discuss publicly if you'd like, i'm just trying to gather data to form my thoughts around this :) | 17:21 |
| gouthamr | mnasiadka: was there anything left to do for the inactive project badges? | 17:21 |
| mnasiadka | There is a patch in openstacksdk I think, let me check | 17:21 |
| mnasiadka | oops | 17:21 |
| mnasiadka | openstackdocstheme | 17:21 |
| mnasiadka | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstackdocstheme/+/987165 | 17:22 |
| gouthamr | ah, tkajinam has looked.. | 17:22 |
| gouthamr | picking up on that thread | 17:22 |
| gouthamr | if folks are aware of any projects that need to be in emerging or inactive projects list, let's propose them prior to M-2 | 17:23 |
| gouthamr | M-2 is July 2nd 2026 | 17:23 |
| spotz[m] | Coming up soon | 17:24 |
| mnasiadka | I’d say Zun is close to be inactive, although hongbin shows up every N months and merges a couple of patches | 17:24 |
| gouthamr | this is the release membership freeze date, so, the release team would appreciate this advance warning | 17:24 |
| mnasiadka | If that’s enough for the project to be active - that’s probably a different discussion | 17:24 |
| noonedeadpunk | ansible galaxy patch is here fwiw | 17:24 |
| noonedeadpunk | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-zuul-jobs/+/993646 | 17:25 |
| gouthamr | ty noonedeadpunk | 17:26 |
| gouthamr | mnasiadka: ack, yes, different and evolving discussion | 17:27 |
| gouthamr | thanks for flagging it though | 17:27 |
| gouthamr | related call out to TC liaisons on DPL teams: please do check in on your respective teams and raise any concerns | 17:27 |
| spotz[m] | If it’s stable and up to date does it need more? | 17:28 |
| gouthamr | yeah, having a PTL/core team and being responsive to security and release concerns has been the indicator.. | 17:29 |
| opendevreview | Dmitriy Rabotyagov proposed openstack/governance master: Deprecate vitrage project https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/982869 | 17:29 |
| gouthamr | zun's i think was kind of a release concern with a requirements mismatch and a broken gate | 17:29 |
| noonedeadpunk | zun has a quite broken 2026.1 release | 17:30 |
| noonedeadpunk | it was fixed on master though AFAIK | 17:30 |
| gouthamr | gate? or undeployable? | 17:30 |
| noonedeadpunk | it did not adopt to legacy engine facade | 17:30 |
| mnasiadka | So I’d say undeployable | 17:31 |
| noonedeadpunk | and didn't merge backport | 17:31 |
| mnasiadka | Hongbin merged my patch in master, but not the backport | 17:31 |
| noonedeadpunk | and also there's hussle with ZXun UI as well | 17:31 |
| noonedeadpunk | sec | 17:31 |
| gouthamr | yikes, and the cycle-trailing deadline is past us, how did you folks handle it? | 17:31 |
| noonedeadpunk | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/zun/+/988859 | 17:31 |
| mnasiadka | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/zun/+/988859 | 17:31 |
| noonedeadpunk | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/zun-ui/+/988868 | 17:31 |
| mnasiadka | gouthamr: Kolla removed Zun | 17:31 |
| noonedeadpunk | I think I tried to email the PTL though, after which master got merged | 17:32 |
| noonedeadpunk | #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/message/P4EPWR67RVCDY2DA3XFT7LD4BM3G2ZP3/ | 17:33 |
| gouthamr | seems like a straight forward fix | 17:33 |
| noonedeadpunk | I probably should bump the topic and remind about these 2 things... | 17:33 |
| gouthamr | that would be great, thanks for nudging | 17:33 |
| gouthamr | alright, that's a wrap on action items that i was tracking. was there anything else that you were working on? | 17:34 |
| mnasiadka | I’ve raised a patch to move tenks repository from Ironic to Kolla governance | 17:35 |
| mnasiadka | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/993388 | 17:35 |
| gouthamr | thanks, i added a project-update hashtag on this.. needs another pair of eyes | 17:36 |
| JayF | Ironic team is 100% OK with that, I can get IRC reciepts if you want. | 17:37 |
| JayF | Essentially Tenks has been a roommate in our org for years and years, happy to get it in a place where folks will care more deeply for it. | 17:37 |
| gouthamr | nah, your vote on it is sufficient | 17:37 |
| gouthamr | let's move to the next topic | 17:38 |
| gouthamr | #topic Bridging the gap surveys and responses | 17:38 |
| gouthamr | i added this topic yesterday, and thought it'd be a nice one to feature for a few weeks here.. given this might break out into multiple tangents | 17:38 |
| gouthamr | #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/message/CVLQIFEVNNJJ7BJSFZJ4RNZZA7ELQKDS/ | 17:38 |
| gouthamr | ildikov and fungi have been doing a lot of legwork on this for multiple releases, i think at this point we're all aware of what this is seeking to achieve | 17:39 |
| ildikov | o/ | 17:39 |
| gouthamr | o/ ildikov.. some cool takeaways on that mail thread | 17:40 |
| gouthamr | thanks for distilling it | 17:40 |
| ildikov | happy to, I also know it's a lot to digest | 17:40 |
| fungi | to be fair, ildikov and clark deserve the lion's share of credit for the survey and metrics analysis, i mostly just shuffle bits from one place to another ;) | 17:40 |
| ildikov | we're hoping to get another 'improvement ideas' email out in the coming weeks | 17:41 |
| ildikov | if folks have any feedback about what's resonating from the analyses, or what's contradicting people's experiences, that would be helpful feedback | 17:41 |
| fungi | also i've started the outreach to individual project teams as of last week when we discussed it in the manila meeting. tomorrow i'm connecting with the cinder team, ironic next week and then neutron | 17:42 |
| gouthamr | great, that'd be awesome | 17:42 |
| gouthamr | I do have some noob questions - on the review stats, you're seeing median 4-day first review but average 32 days (due to outliers) - do you think projects have actively worked on this from past survey data? | 17:43 |
| gouthamr | also, have there been any projects that have seen no responses to the maintainer/contributor surveys? :) | 17:44 |
| gouthamr | not to name/shame.. but genuinely trying to understand how we can nudge them to help understand the situation here | 17:44 |
| ildikov | that one is always hard to grasp just from the numbers | 17:44 |
| fungi | i think the median is a good indicator of what's actually happening day-to-day, but due to the way our minds and memories work the average is going to be closer to contributor perception of what's happening | 17:44 |
| gouthamr | true :( | 17:44 |
| ildikov | the average number can grow quite high when there's a long-outstanding change that gets merged | 17:45 |
| fungi | and i do think we, subjectively, see that play out in survey responses as well | 17:45 |
| fungi | as a contributor i'm not going to remember all those changes of mine that got a response in about 4 days, but i'll definitely remember the few that took more than a month to get noticed | 17:46 |
| ildikov | we also saw a couple of examples in the most recent cycle where the average number got lower than in previous cycles, which would suggest that the project teams were more focused on recently opened changes | 17:46 |
| gouthamr | ack; wonder if LFX Insights is looking to filter out "stale" data somehow.. author moved on, merge conflict never resolved etc.. | 17:48 |
| fungi | not afaik, but an upshot is that our work on this has put some pressure on the lfx insights transition to get a lot of existing stuff corrected at least | 17:49 |
| ildikov | we're still diving into the dashboard on that level of detail, for transparency, our dataset is currently not sourced directly from LFX Insights | 17:49 |
| ildikov | +1 to what fungi just said | 17:49 |
| gouthamr | ++ | 17:49 |
| gouthamr | i think some teams have a good hygiene of dropping stale reviews, but, that's a bother too for teams that are time strapped | 17:50 |
| fungi | priorities have been to get what's there actually correct, then add tracking for generally useful things we also look at which aren't implemented yet | 17:50 |
| noonedeadpunk | ++ | 17:50 |
| gouthamr | ack | 17:50 |
| gouthamr | do you have any immediate/actionable things for the TC to pursue? | 17:51 |
| gouthamr | like nudges for teams where we gathered no data? | 17:51 |
| fungi | i was somewhat surprised that we had no maintainers or contributors fill out the surveys from some of the more active projects like nova | 17:51 |
| ildikov | more folks flling out the surveys would be very helpful | 17:51 |
| gouthamr | oh | 17:52 |
| fungi | that makes team outreach a little challenging because all we have to go on in those cases in metrics | 17:52 |
| gouthamr | Uggla: unsure if the nova team discussed this ^ | 17:52 |
| fungi | and may mean that teams interested in feedback aren't getting it | 17:53 |
| ildikov | I think it's easy to approach this by 'I filled it out last cycle, my experience hasn't changed so I'm not going to fill it out again' or just not finding the time to fill it out in the next cycle again | 17:53 |
| fungi | the manila team has consistently gotten a lot of survey responses, so maybe we can figure out how they're managing to do that and try to replicate it elsewhere | 17:53 |
| ildikov | if we don't have the returning survey feedback from folks, then it's much harder to track if things improved, stayed the same or maybe even got worse in some areas | 17:54 |
| ildikov | metrics can only tell so much without the human feedback | 17:54 |
| gouthamr | it might be useful though, nova maintainers/contributors have been active on the agentic-workflows front, so.. i'd actually like to see the AI questions responses from them.. besides of course, being high-traffic, they probably see a lot of review patterns to note | 17:54 |
| ildikov | +1 | 17:55 |
| fungi | not that we want to draw direct comparisons between teams on the whole, it's not useful because their circumstances are all different, but overall we want to figure out if things certain teams are doing can be applicable elsewhere | 17:55 |
| gouthamr | yes | 17:55 |
| gouthamr | can i amplify the survey again? | 17:56 |
| ildikov | and if teams applied something new whether that worked out or didn't change anything for them, etc | 17:56 |
| fungi | at this point i'd probably conserve amplification energy for the hibiscus round | 17:56 |
| ildikov | ++ | 17:56 |
| gouthamr | +1 - the review prioritization thing has been a point of discussion, so rounding back on it would be useful | 17:56 |
| fungi | it's hard to reintegrate later responses when analysis has already been done, though we can still look at the responses of course | 17:57 |
| gouthamr | okay, fair | 17:57 |
| ildikov | how can we help with making it easier to fill it out? | 17:57 |
| ildikov | we're currently opening the surveys right when the new OpenStack release comes out | 17:57 |
| noonedeadpunk | there's one thing for open discussion btw... but maybe next time or smth... | 17:57 |
| ildikov | should we open them a little earlier and close it in time to get the analyses done by the PTG maybe? | 17:58 |
| fungi | we could in theory start the surveys earlier, it might make sense to start them as early as rc1 week | 17:58 |
| gouthamr | noonedeadpunk: ack, stephenfin had questions, is this what you're referring to? | 17:58 |
| noonedeadpunk | no, completely another thing.... | 17:58 |
| gouthamr | ildikov: fungi: maybe M-3 even | 17:58 |
| noonedeadpunk | git 3 changes default branch :) | 17:58 |
| gouthamr | noonedeadpunk: ack, we can defer that to next week perhaps | 17:59 |
| noonedeadpunk | so it was if we should revive discussion of branch rename.... | 17:59 |
| fungi | at m-3 the cycle isn't actually over yet, though i suppose technically there's no reason we couldn't shoot to have it available before the end of the cycle | 17:59 |
| ildikov | +1 | 18:00 |
| gouthamr | time check on this, but please feel free to continue the chatter once we close this out | 18:00 |
| fungi | also you know where to find us if you have ideas/questions | 18:00 |
| gouthamr | yes, and i'll poke you folks and get a topic added for next week (or later if necessary) | 18:00 |
| gouthamr | thank you ildikov fungi | 18:00 |
| gouthamr | clarkb: | 18:00 |
| fungi | (clark isn't around today) | 18:01 |
| gouthamr | i'd like to chat about stephenfin's questions after the meeting if that's alright | 18:01 |
| gouthamr | is there anything else to note for the minutes today? | 18:01 |
| mnasiadka | I guess it’s for after the meeting - but Kolla is analysing the possibility of having a vPTG after the cycle-trailing release date | 18:02 |
| gouthamr | for the I release? | 18:02 |
| mnasiadka | Yes, we tend to discuss existing not-yet-release issues instead of discussing next cycle priorities | 18:02 |
| mnasiadka | *not-yet-released | 18:03 |
| fungi | #link https://lists.openinfra.org/archives/list/foundation@lists.openinfra.org/thread/YDNT5SCJGE5KHCMKQA53SSLYVCLVB3DX/ Next OpenInfra Foundation AI Policy WG meeting (18:00 UTC tomorrow) | 18:03 |
| noonedeadpunk | with that I think for OSA we're good with doing it with others | 18:03 |
| noonedeadpunk | I find it actually valuable to wrap up the cycle, if there're any know issues that may prevent us from releasing, and still get time for next cycle planning | 18:03 |
| noonedeadpunk | though we're having quite small ptgs recently, so yeah | 18:04 |
| gouthamr | nice, good stuff.. i think this is like teams that are planning virtual midcycle events.. | 18:04 |
| gouthamr | ty for the call out on the AI policy stuff, reminds me we have action items to get to from the PTG discussions ourselves | 18:04 |
| gouthamr | let's wrap it up here | 18:05 |
| gouthamr | thank you all for joining! please do stay for the after party | 18:05 |
| gouthamr | #endmeeting | 18:05 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Tue Jun 16 18:05:05 2026 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 18:05 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2026/tc.2026-06-16-17.01.html | 18:05 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2026/tc.2026-06-16-17.01.txt | 18:05 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2026/tc.2026-06-16-17.01.log.html | 18:05 |
| gouthamr | stephenfin asked about transferring x/cursive to openstack | 18:06 |
| gouthamr | #link https://review.opendev.org/q/hashtag:%22cursive%22+(status:open%20OR%20status:merged) | 18:06 |
| gouthamr | any objections to doing this? | 18:06 |
| fungi | we can do that, it requires scheduling a brief maintenance window because we have to move some files with gerrit offline, so we usually add it as an agenda topic for the opendev sysadmins weekly meeting | 18:07 |
| fungi | and if there are multiple repository moves we like to batch them to minimize outages | 18:07 |
| gouthamr | ack | 18:08 |
| gouthamr | today's opendev meeting is in a couple of hours? https://lists.opendev.org/archives/list/service-discuss@lists.opendev.org/thread/7XG5APQGNN6ZQGGRFIFHI3RMTZHANQJX/ | 18:08 |
| gouthamr | don't know if you'll get to open discussion there, but, this could be a candidate | 18:08 |
| fungi | yeah, but we close out the meeting agenda 24 hours before the meeting, and also clark's not around today anyway (i'll be standing in as meeting chair), so discussing next week is likelt better | 18:09 |
| gouthamr | i see, ack | 18:09 |
| gouthamr | alternatively, if stephenfin prefers async, is service-discuss the place to ask this? | 18:09 |
| fungi | if it's urgent we could have an ad hoc discussion to attempt to get consensus on scheduling the maintenance sooner | 18:10 |
| fungi | and yes, the service-discuss@lists.opendev.org mailing list would be the place to bring it up async | 18:10 |
| gouthamr | i'm not sure on the urgency, but, without the move, the governance change won't merge :) | 18:10 |
| mnasiadka | And if it doesn’t merge after the move, do we move it back? (Similar to the earlier repo retirement discussion) ;-) | 18:11 |
| fungi | i'm also happy to discuss it here, or in the #openstack-infra irc channel, or the #opendev:opendev.org matrix room | 18:12 |
| gouthamr | mnasiadka: hope not.. which is why tc-members should raise an objection on the governance change soon | 18:12 |
| gouthamr | if there is any | 18:12 |
| mnasiadka | I think the more repos move out from x/ the better | 18:13 |
| fungi | but also a project team adopting a deliverable usually has minimal approval requirements per house rules, as long as the ptl (or e.g. tact sig liaison) is in favor | 18:13 |
| fungi | from the opendev and tact sig side of things, we generally assume that if the ptl or tact sig liaison approves of a change corresponding to a governance change that falls under tc house rules, then it is likely enough to get approved by the tc | 18:15 |
| gouthamr | cursive is used by cinder/glance/nova and we track it in global requirements | 18:15 |
| gouthamr | so this feels like an omission, along the lines of the x-static libraries that we formally brought in.. | 18:16 |
| fungi | gouthamr: entirely unrelated, but i enjoyed your digital sovereignty article! | 18:24 |
| fungi | it's an excellent read | 18:24 |
| gouthamr | \o/ thank you fungi | 18:30 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/governance master: Update Alex's account https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/992412 | 19:32 |
| opendevreview | Jay Faulkner proposed openstack/security-doc master: [OSSN-0100] IPA Command Injection (CVE-2026-43003) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/security-doc/+/993668 | 19:39 |
| fungi | stephenfin: i've added the x/cursor -> openstack/cursor rename to next week's opendev collaboratory meeting agenda so the sysadmins can plan gerrit maintenance scheduling for it https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/InfraTeamMeeting#Upcoming_Project_Renames | 20:00 |
| opendevreview | Jay Faulkner proposed openstack/security-doc master: [OSSN-0100] IPA Command Injection (CVE-2026-43003) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/security-doc/+/993668 | 20:21 |
| opendevreview | Jay Faulkner proposed openstack/security-doc master: [OSSN-0100] IPA Command Injection (CVE-2026-43003) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/security-doc/+/993668 | 20:32 |
| opendevreview | Jay Faulkner proposed openstack/security-doc master: [OSSN-0100] IPA Command Injection (CVE-2026-43003) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/security-doc/+/993668 | 20:33 |
| opendevreview | Jay Faulkner proposed openstack/security-doc master: [OSSN-0100] IPA Command Injection (CVE-2026-43003) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/security-doc/+/993668 | 20:35 |
| opendevreview | Jay Faulkner proposed openstack/security-doc master: [OSSN-0100] IPA Command Injection (CVE-2026-43003) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/security-doc/+/993668 | 20:36 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/security-doc master: [OSSN-0100] IPA Command Injection (CVE-2026-43003) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/security-doc/+/993668 | 20:53 |
| opendevreview | Goutham Pacha Ravi proposed openstack/governance master: Add security liaison tracking to projects https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/993696 | 21:28 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/governance master: Fix typos https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/992764 | 21:50 |
| opendevreview | Goutham Pacha Ravi proposed openstack/governance master: Add security liaison tracking to projects https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/993696 | 22:32 |
| opendevreview | Goutham Pacha Ravi proposed openstack/governance master: Add security liaison tracking to projects https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/993696 | 22:35 |
| opendevreview | Goutham Pacha Ravi proposed openstack/governance master: Add security liaison tracking to projects https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/993696 | 22:39 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/governance master: pti: Remove Go doc https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/989189 | 22:40 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 4.1.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!