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

[Dennis Kliban]

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Jeff Ortel <jortel at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

We use the rest of Django without inspecting every line of code, so I don't
see a reason to treat the FileSystem storage backend any different. We are
using Django so we can reduce the amount of code we are maintaining
ourselves. Completely reimplementing the storage backend goes against that
goal. I plan to work on this issue today.

-Dennis

>
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20170928/e58959ff/attachment.htm>