search

pear / Net_SMTP

PHP SMTP Implementation
https://pear.php.net/package/net_smtp
BSD 2-Clause "Simplified" License
26 stars 38 forks source link

Fixing violations of coding standard using PHP_CodeSniffer #73

Closed schengawegga closed 1 year ago

Neustradamus commented 2 years ago

@jparise: The PR is okay or a change of @schengawegga is needed?

jparise commented 2 years ago

@jparise: The PR is okay or a change of @schengawegga is needed?

I think we still need to sort out this bit: https://github.com/pear/Net_SMTP/pull/73#discussion_r986282030

schengawegga commented 2 years ago

@jparise Ok. I understand your argumentation. So we can extract the license text from the first comment block to a separate commented block at the beginning of the file. But then, we will not PEAR coding standard proof.

By the way, in PEAR/Mail, they implemented the license block the same way as i did it in the PR: https://github.com/pear/Mail/blob/master/Mail.php

And yes, the license will be a part of the file documentation in php documenter: https://pear.php.net/package/Mail/docs/latest/Mail/_Mail-1.2.0---Mail.php.html

I don´t know, if this is uncommon, but ob PEAR/Mail it is common practice.

I am not sure, wich alternative i prefer. I only want it to be surely good discussed.

So we have two alternatives.

  1. License in a separate comment block at the beginning of the file and not be fully PEAR coding standard proof.
  2. License in the same comment block as the file comment and be fully PEAR proof, but always showing the license in the documenter tools.

What do you think?