Drupal coding standards are version-independent and "always-current". All new code should follow the current standards, regardless of (core) version. Existing code in older versions may be updated, but doesn't necessarily have to be. Especially for larger code-bases (like Drupal core), updating the code of a previous version for current standards may too huge of a task. However, code in current versions should follow the current standards. Lastly, when following this practice, make sure to not squeeze coding standards updates/clean-ups into otherwise unrelated patches.
Drupal coding standards are version-independent and "always-current". All new code should follow the current standards, regardless of (core) version. Existing code in older versions may be updated, but doesn't necessarily have to be. Especially for larger code-bases (like Drupal core), updating the code of a previous version for the current standards may too huge of a task. However, code in current versions should follow the current standards.
Note: Do not squeeze coding standards updates/clean-ups into otherwise unrelated patches. Only touch code lines that are actually relevant. To update existing code for the current standards, always create separate and dedicated issues and patches.
Based on the confusion that arose in aforementioned issue, this could have probably been discussed some more. ;)
I.e., patches backported from D7 to D6 may be adjusted for the differing string concatenation rules being used throughout Drupal 6 core for consistency.
(Note, however, that I (sun) am currently not sure whether this "should" is actually turned into a "required" for backported D6 patches.)
In #23, webchick postponed this issue until blockers to #4: Use Coder Review are resolved.
See: #1299710: [meta] Automate the coding-standards part of patch review →
Closed: outdated
Documentation
It involves compliance with, or the content of coding standards. Requires broad community agreement.
Not all content is available!
It's likely this issue predates Contrib.social: some issue and comment data are missing.
I have read the IS and most of the comments. I admit that after #23, which I agree with, I started to skim. It was interesting to read about the challenges faces 12 years ago. Fortunately, and as far as I can tell these problems are in the past. Complying with coding standards is still a challenge but much is automated now.
Based on #23 and the lack of discussion for 12 years I am closing this issue. I think outdated is the best status.