[Zope-dev] Re: 2.9.4? reStructuredText support?

[Tres Seaver]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Andreas Jung wrote:
> 
> 
> --On 8. Juli 2006 07:45:01 -0400 Jim Fulton <jim at zope.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>> On Jul 8, 2006, at 1:11 AM, Andreas Jung wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --On 7. Juli 2006 11:03:06 -0400 Jim Fulton <jim at zope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think we should do a 2.9.4 release to incorporate the recent hot
>>>> fix.
>>>> This is easy for me to say, since I won't be doing it. :)
>>>>
>>>> Because this recent fix actually fixed the same problem that the
>>>> previous hot fix was supposed to fix, I think someone needs to
>>>> work up
>>>> some decent tests.  This is not a trivial task, bit it is
>>>> necessary.  If
>>>> no one is willing to do this, I think we need to drop the TTW
>>>> reStructuredText support from Zope 2, as it is too great a risk.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Dropping TTW reST is absolutely not an option. I breaks backward
>>> compatibility.
>>
>> Sorry, security trumps backward compatibility.
>>
>>
>>>> BTW, I suspect that a less violent patch could be created, if
>>>> anyone wants to champion TTW reStructuedText support in
>>>> Zope 2.  Personally, I'm for dropping it.
>>>
>>> Tres' patch is looking in fine to me. I don't see a need right now
>>> for dropping reST with having file inclusing *removed*.
>>
>> Has anyone written tests for Tres' patch?  Apparently no one wrote
>> adequate tests for the last hot fix, which helped put us in this
>> situation.
> 
> I've written some tests (checked in on the trunk). They test the 'raw'
> and 'include' directives

Great!  Maybe we can add a similar set for the 'fmt="restructured-text"'
in DTML.

> @Tres: what is the reason to keep the 'raw' code in docutils? I am in favor
> to remove it and replace it with a NotImplementedError exception (same
> as for the the 'include' code). The related tests (for reStructredText
> and ZReST are commented for now) do except a NotImplementedError for a
> 'raw' directive.

'raw' can be used to disable ReST processing for a block, even if the
':file:' or ':url:' options aren't set.;  I was trying to leave the
possibility of that use case.


Tres.
- --
===================================================================
Tres Seaver          +1 202-558-7113          tseaver at palladion.com
Palladion Software   "Excellence by Design"    http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEsVdq+gerLs4ltQ4RAr5lAKCD7gYS/162mz8YPfUm7NshA2lJmwCgtXOe
nVX21AXxsYmMfNEgmtAaPmk=
=tWJZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----