--On 8. Juli 2006 07:45:01 -0400 Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Jul 8, 2006, at 1:11 AM, Andreas Jung wrote:

--On 7. Juli 2006 11:03:06 -0400 Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I think we should do a 2.9.4 release to incorporate the recent hot
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

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

I've written some tests (checked in on the trunk). They test the 'raw'
and 'include' directives

@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'


Attachment: pgpxhvtKf3mXC.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to