[Pulp-dev] Recommend #2950 be re-prioritized.

[Jeff Ortel]

Team,

I am fine with revisiting storage as some point but disagree that #2950 should be *high* priority (higher than
most other tasks) and should not aligned with sprint 26.  As noted in redmine, Our FileStorage implementation
conforms to the django storage interface, is simple and tested.  The django provided FileSystemStorage has
concerning code quality and is completely undocumented.  To safely subclass it will require inspecting the
code line-by-line to ensure predictable behavior when overriding any of it's methods.  As you all know,
reliable storage is a critical part of Pulp.

As I said, it's a fine idea to revisit this.  But, looking at the other tasks aligned to sprint 26 (and, all
the work left to do for the MVP), this is not higher priority.

-jeff


https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2950

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 847 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20170926/a7450477/attachment.sig>