Reviewed all extensions and wrote down notes.

extreview/approved.rst

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+Approved Extensions
+===================
+
+This document contains a list of all extensions that were approved and the
+date of approval as well as notes.  This should make it possible to better
+track the extension approval process.
+
+
+Flask-Babel
+-----------
+
+First Approval: 2010-07-23
+Last Review: 2010-07-23
+Approved version: 0.6
+Approved license: BSD
+
+Notes: Developed by the Flask development head
+
+How to improve: add a better long description to the next release
+
+
+Flask-SQLAlchemy
+----------------
+
+First Approval: 2010-07-25
+Last Review: 2010-07-25
+Approved version: 0.9
+Approved license: BSD
+
+Notes: Developed by the Flask development head
+
+How to improve: add a better long description to the next release

extreview/listed.rst

@@ -0,0 +1,183 @@
+Listed Extensions
+=================
+
+This list contains extensions that passed listing.  This means the
+extension is on the list of extensions on the website.  It does not
+contain extensions that are approved.
+
+
+Flask-CouchDB
+-------------
+
+Last-Review: 2010-07-25
+Reviewed version: 0.2
+
+Would be fine for approval, but the test suite is not part of the sdist
+package (missing entry in MANIFEST.in) and the test suite does not respond
+to either "make test" or "python setup.py test".
+
+
+Flask-CouchDBKit
+----------------
+
+Last-Review: 2010-07-25
+Reviewed Version: 0.2
+
+Would be fine for approval, but the test suite is not part of the sdist
+package (missing entry in MANIFEST.in) and the test suite does not respond
+to either "make test" or "python setup.py test".
+
+
+Flask-Creole
+------------
+
+Last-Review: 2010-07-25
+Reviewed Version: 0.2
+
+Would be fine for approval, but the test suite is not part of the sdist
+package (missing entry in MANIFEST.in) and the test suite does not respond
+to either "make test" or "python setup.py test".  Furthermore the README
+file is empty.
+
+
+flask-csrf
+----------
+
+Last-Review: 2010-07-25
+Reviewed Version: 0.2
+
+Will not be approved because this is functionality that should be handled
+in the form handling systems which is for Flask-WTF already the case.
+Also, this implementation only supports one open tab with forms.
+
+Name is not following Flask extension naming rules.
+
+Considered for unlisting.
+
+
+Flask-Genshi
+------------
+
+Last-Review: 2010-07-25
+Reviewed Version: 0.3
+
+Would be fine for approval, but the test suite is not part of the sdist
+package (missing entry in MANIFEST.in) and the test suite does not respond
+to either "make test" or "python setup.py test".  Furthermore the long
+description is empty.  The zip_safe flag is not set to False which is a
+requirement for approved extensions.
+
+
+flask-lesscss
+-------------
+
+Last-Review: 2010-07-25
+Reviewed Version: 0.9.1
+
+Broken package description, nonconforming package name, does not follow
+standard API rules (init_lesscss instead of lesscss).
+
+Considered for unlisting, improved version should release as
+"Flask-LessCSS" with a conforming API and fixed packages indices, as well
+as a testsuite.
+
+
+flask-mail
+----------
+
+Last-Review: 2010-07-25
+Reviewed Version: 0.3.1
+
+Would be fine for approval, but the test suite is not part of the sdist
+package (missing entry in MANIFEST.in) and the test suite does not respond
+to either "make test" or "python setup.py test".  Furthermore the long
+description in the package index is a little bit too short.
+
+Package name should be changed to Flask-Mail with the approval to be
+consistent, this might also be the change to improve the API if necessary,
+but I don't see any big design problems there.
+
+
+Flask-OAuth
+-----------
+
+Last-Review: 2010-07-25
+Reviewed Version: 0.9
+
+Short long description, missing tests.
+
+
+Flask-OpenID
+------------
+
+Last-Review: 2010-07-25
+Reviewed Version: 1.0.1
+
+Short long description, missing tests.
+
+
+Flask-Script
+------------
+
+Last-Review: 2010-07-25
+Reviewed Version: 0.2
+
+Would be fine for approval, but the test suite is not part of the sdist
+package (missing entry in MANIFEST.in) and the test suite does not respond
+to either "make test" or "python setup.py test".
+
+The upcoming 0.3 release looks promising, could need a longer "long
+description" in the package index though.
+
+
+Flask-Testing
+-------------
+
+Last-Review: 2010-07-25
+Reviewed Version: 0.2
+
+Would be fine for approval, but the test suite is not part of the sdist
+package (missing entry in MANIFEST.in) and the test suite does not respond
+to either "make test" or "python setup.py test".
+
+
+Flask-Themes
+------------
+
+Last-Review: 2010-07-25
+Reviewed Version: 0.1
+
+Would be fine for approval, but the test suite is not part of the sdist
+package (missing entry in MANIFEST.in) and the test suite does not respond
+to either "make test" or "python setup.py test".
+
+
+Flask-Uploads
+-------------
+
+Last-Review: 2010-07-25
+Reviewed Version: 0.1
+
+Would be fine for approval, but the test suite is not part of the sdist
+package (missing entry in MANIFEST.in) and the test suite does not respond
+to either "make test" or "python setup.py test".
+
+
+Flask-WTF
+---------
+
+Last-Review: 2010-07-25
+Reviewed Version: 0.2.1
+
+Would be fine for approval, but the test suite is not part of the sdist
+package (missing entry in MANIFEST.in) and the test suite does not respond
+to either "make test" or "python setup.py test".
+
+
+Flask-XML-RPC
+-------------
+
+Last-Review: 2010-07-25
+Reviewed Version: 0.2.1
+
+Missing tests, API wise it would be fine for approval.

extreview/rejected.rst

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+Rejected Extensions
+===================
+
+This is a list of extensions that is currently rejected from listing and
+with that also not approved.  If an extension ends up here it should
+improved to be listed.
+
+
+Flask-Actions
+-------------
+
+Last Review: 2010-07-25
+Reviewed version: 0.2
+
+Rejected because of missing description in PyPI, formatting issues with
+the documentation (missing headlines, scrollbars etc.) and a general clash
+of functionality with the Flask-Script package.  Latter should not be a
+problem, but the documentation should improve.  For listing, the extension
+developer should probably discuss the extension on the mailinglist with
+others.
+
+Futhermore it also has an egg registered with an invalid filename.
+
+
+Flask-Jinja2Extender
+--------------------
+
+Last Review: 2010-07-25
+Reviewed version: 0.1
+
+Usecase not obvious, hacky implementation, does not solve a problem that
+could not be solved with Flask itself.  I suppose it is to aid other
+extensions, but that should be discussed on the mailinglist.
+
+
+Flask-Markdown
+--------------
+
+Last Review: 2010-07-25
+Reviewed version: 0.2
+
+Would be great for enlisting but it should follow the API of Flask-Creole.
+Besides that, the docstrings are not valid rst (run through rst2html to
+see the issue) and it is missing tests.  Otherwise fine :)
+
+
+flask-urls
+----------
+
+Last Review: 2010-07-25
+Reviewed version: 0.9.2
+
+Broken PyPI index and non-conforming extension name.  Due to the small
+featureset this was also delisted from the list.  It was there previously
+before the approval process was introduced.