On 14/11/14 11:25 +, stuart.mcla...@hp.com wrote:
On 2014-11-13 18:28:14 +0100 (+0100), Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
[...]
I think those who maintain glance_store module in downstream
distributions will cherry-pick the security fix into their
packages, so there is nothing to do in terms of stable
On 2014-11-13 18:28:14 +0100 (+0100), Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
[...]
I think those who maintain glance_store module in downstream
distributions will cherry-pick the security fix into their
packages, so there is nothing to do in terms of stable branches to
handle the security issue.
[...]
As a c
On 2014-11-13 18:28:14 +0100 (+0100), Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
[...]
> I think those who maintain glance_store module in downstream
> distributions will cherry-pick the security fix into their
> packages, so there is nothing to do in terms of stable branches to
> handle the security issue.
[...]
As
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 13/11/14 18:17, stuart.mcla...@hp.com wrote:
> All,
>
> The 0.1.9 version of glance_store, and glance's master branch both
> contain some fixes for the Swift multi-tenant store.
>
> This security related change hasn't merged to glance_store yet
All,
The 0.1.9 version of glance_store, and glance's master branch both
contain some fixes for the Swift multi-tenant store.
This security related change hasn't merged to glance_store yet:
https://review.openstack.org/130200
I'd like to suggest that we try to merge this security fix and release
