Jump to: navigation, search

Difference between revisions of "Meetings/Ironic"

(Agenda for next meeting)
Line 27: Line 27:
 
** 2023.1 workstream progress https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/IronicWorkstreams2023.1 - What items can we land in time for Antelope?
 
** 2023.1 workstream progress https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/IronicWorkstreams2023.1 - What items can we land in time for Antelope?
 
* Open discussion
 
* Open discussion
 +
** (vanou) Acceptability of backport patch (https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ironic/+/870880). This patch deals with incompatible behavior of Fujitsu server firmware: new version of firmware does not support http connection to bmc. To handle this, this patch uses verify step and warns ironic operator about possibility of this firmware incompatibility, if http connection to bmc fails. I would like to ask if such change can be backportable.
 +
** (vanou) Clarify JayF's comment on vulnerability handling guide (https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ironic/+/872750). JayF puts comment on that draft with that '''"if there is a vulnerability in a related project to Ironic, such as a vendor library we consume, we will gladly connect a reporter up to a responsible party."''' However I remember, on Ironic meeting(2023/1/23), we agreed with '''"if a library that we primarily use is vulnerable, impacting ironic, it only makes sense to treat it like an ironic vuln if the library maintainers are on board"'''. Does JayF's comment on draft differ from '''"treat it like an ironic vuln'''''?
  
 
== Previous meetings ==
 
== Previous meetings ==

Revision as of 10:45, 27 February 2023

Weekly Ironic Project Team Meeting

If you're interested in bare metal deployments within OpenStack, please join our weekly discussion about the Ironic project! The one-hour weekly meetings start at 15:00 UTC on Mondays (as of March 28th, 2022), are held in the #openstack-ironic room on ircs://irc.oftc.net:6697, and are chaired by Jay Faulkner (JayF), Julia Kreger (TheJulia), Dmitry Tantsur (dtantsur), Riccardo Pittau (rpittau) or Iury Gregory (iurygregory).

NOTE: Meeting time is UTC based and may need to be adjusted based on local time zone changes, eg. as a result of daylight savings, which changes on different days in different countries.


Anyone is welcome to add topics to the agenda. However, topics should be posted at least two (2) days before the meeting to give folks time to get context, and should include the IRC handle of the proposer and a link to further information. This gives everyone time to review any material ahead of time so we can use the meeting time for actual discussion. Requests to have a patch reviewed should not be a topic and instead should be covered during the Open Discussion portion of the meeting.

Next Meeting

Meetings are held weekly. If one is cancelled, it will either be mentioned in the previous meeting or an email will be sent out to the openstack-discuss mailing list.

Agenda for next meeting

  • Announcements / Reminder
  • Review action items from previous meeting: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/ironic/2023/
  • Review Ironic CI status & update whiteboard if needed
  • VirtualPDU update
  • Release countdown: 4 weeks
  • Open discussion
    • (vanou) Acceptability of backport patch (https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ironic/+/870880). This patch deals with incompatible behavior of Fujitsu server firmware: new version of firmware does not support http connection to bmc. To handle this, this patch uses verify step and warns ironic operator about possibility of this firmware incompatibility, if http connection to bmc fails. I would like to ask if such change can be backportable.
    • (vanou) Clarify JayF's comment on vulnerability handling guide (https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ironic/+/872750). JayF puts comment on that draft with that "if there is a vulnerability in a related project to Ironic, such as a vendor library we consume, we will gladly connect a reporter up to a responsible party." However I remember, on Ironic meeting(2023/1/23), we agreed with "if a library that we primarily use is vulnerable, impacting ironic, it only makes sense to treat it like an ironic vuln if the library maintainers are on board". Does JayF's comment on draft differ from "treat it like an ironic vuln?

Previous meetings

Logs from previous meetings can be found here.

Related meetings

Review Jams

Ironic used to hold periodic review jam meetings. They have been discontinued.