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

2017-09-28 Thread Dennis Kliban
I've posted a PR[0] that resolves this issue. I tested that I can upload content, publish it, download it from a distribution. I also tested that I can sync, publish, download from the distribution. The file path is also correct when requesting an artifact via REST API. [0] https://github.com/pulp

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

2017-09-28 Thread Jeff Ortel
On 09/28/2017 10:39 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote: > One of the things I heard was that we aren't sure why we have this custom > storage backend> I was very surprised to hear that because it was developed > and merged. Yes, implementing a custom storage back-end for no good reason would be surprisin

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

2017-09-28 Thread Brian Bouterse
One of the things I heard was that we aren't sure why we have this custom storage backend. I was very surprised to hear that because it was developed and merged. I want to make sure we understand custom code we've written before we go too much further. I think that is why we put it on the sprint cu

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

2017-09-28 Thread Jeff Ortel
On 09/28/2017 08:56 AM, Dennis Kliban wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Jeff Ortel > 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 sho

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

2017-09-28 Thread Dennis Kliban
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Jeff Ortel 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 > conf