dynamic_page_cache.module has an incorrect and misleading @file doc

HAH! Best nitpick ever!

I nearly committed this, but even for a one-word-remover, please don't RTBC your own patch.

However this can count as that RTBC so not changing status.

This is a tricky one. Sorry @catch and @Wim Leers.

+++ b/core/modules/dynamic_page_cache/dynamic_page_cache.module
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
+ * Caches responses, cacheability, request and response policies allowing.

This is still quite a strange sentence. I think what it is saying is:
Caches responses depending on cacheability metadata and request and response policies.

Also looking at the page_cache.module I think we need to differentiate:

/**
 * @file
 * Caches responses for anonymous users, request and response policies allowing.
 */

I'm pretty sure this also uses cacheability metadata too.

#4: The reason I self-RTBC'd is because I literally A) removed HTML, B) added cacheability, to a single-line, high-level comment of the module that I'm the only active maintainer for…

#5: I agree it's a strange sentence, and your interpretation is correct. I failed to make it clearer while still fitting it within 80 cols. Your suggestion exceeds it too…
And no, Page Cache completely ignores cacheability metadata. It caches blindly, as long as request and response policies allow it.

If it were up to me, we'd simply rm -rf this docblock. The entire reason these files even exist is hook_help()…

This @file docblock is completely and utterly pointless. Every minute we spend on this issue is a waste of time IMHO.

How about just borrowing from hook_help. Imo we have too much implementation here anyway. And guess I agree that this is useless text and annoying to maintain.

My suggestion that fits:
Caches responses for all users, handling dynamic content correctly.

Works for me.

P.S.: it seems the fewer actual issues there are for a module, the more nitpicky we become? :)

#9: thanks!

Committed/pushed to 8.4.x, thanks!

Thanks!