On 6/19/2017 2:31 PM, Jakub Zelenka wrote: > On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Fleshgrinder <p...@fleshgrinder.com> wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> I started voting on the Doxygen RFC: >> >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/doxygen >> >> > I just wanted to send my feedback and the reason why I voted "yes". First > of all I don't really like adding too much documentation to the code (I'm > actually talking about the PR which seems really too much IMHO). However I > think that this RFC is more about having a standard for documenting > exported functions which would be really good in my opinion and I think > Doxygen is really good one (one can easily see that in Apache httpd for > example). I think that few lines is usually enough and sometimes it is > useful to have a note about the used parameters. What I want to say is that > we shouldn't think about the RFC as accepting the proposed PR. It should be > treated on case by case bases and over documented code should be still > rejected. > > Cheers > > Jakub >
Thanks for the feedback, the intend of this RFC is exactly as you understood it. It's not a +1 for the linked PR. As I said to Nikic, whether a particular PR is acceptable or not must be part of a code review. -- Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
