One of the problems is that we don't *have* the experts in many areas any more because they are (per the subject line) inactive in the project.
We do have Glen, but he is only one man. :-) -- Tom Jordahl Macromedia -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 4:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: too many "inactive" committers On Wed, 29 May 2002, Glyn Normington wrote: > change? I guess the problem is I'm hesitant to change code that I don't > personally understand well, so I tend to leave this to the experts in a > particular area, even though they may be too busy. Do I need to have > thoroughly understood any change I commit or is it reasonable to put some > trust in the submitter of the change? Most of the time I trust the submitter - based on the assumption that he spent the time to write the patch and understand what's happening, so probably he know more than I do on that area. You can ask questions - and if someone more familiar with the code sees a problem he can complain. But in general, if you can't understand the code - how are the new people supposed to understand it ? I think the duty in this case is a strong -1 on the code you don't unerstand ( and require a refactoring/ more comments / better design / from those who are experts in that area). Costin
