Thanks Tobias - I'll take a look at this on Friday. I think this brings up a minor issue w/django-storages and that's the fact that we don't have a solid way to declare requirements. I've messaged David about the possibility of namespacing. We could also just have a few requirements files - one for each backend. But I feel like a namespaced setup would allow us to specify requirements individually and then users would get new requirements when updating django-storages as well. Have any thoughts?
Sorry I didn't see this till just now. I'm not sure how namespacing would look, but my thoughts mostly just that each project will have its own way of installing requirements (and will want to list the needed requirements for django-storages manually rather than relying on it to install them), so we shouldn't make too many assumptions. I think simply documenting the dependency (a comment in s3boto.py and a line in the documentation page for the backend) would be plenty for nearly all purposes. Thanks - looking forward to your thoughts on the code!
If you could make it so that the encrypt_key keyword argument was only passed to set_contents_from_file() if encryption was enabled, then we could easily merge this pull request. Can you make those changes and update the pull request?
Happy to do that, but what's the reason exactly? It seems like it would be better not to rely on the default value of encrypt_key being False, but instead just pass in that value no matter what. Am I missing something?
My company has "bet heavily" on Boto as our sole means of interacting with S3, and at the same time we're facing a compliance deadline that requires us to encrypt our files at rest. If this pull request isn't accepted soon our only options will be to hand-patch our django-storages code or worse abandon it entirely.
Please don't make us do that! Does django-storages have any kind of bounty system or any other way for a 3rd party like us to incentivize this pull request?