Re: [RFC] [Vote] Doxygen
| From: | Fleshgrinder | Date: | Wed, 21 Jun 2017 14:44:49 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] [Vote] Doxygen | ||
| References: | 1 2 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-99590@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On 6/19/2017 2:31 PM, Jakub Zelenka wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Fleshgrinder <php@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
Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP digital signature signature.asc
Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP digital signature signature.asc