nach oben

Empirical Software Engineering

Erschienen in:

07.06.2019

Whom are you going to call? determinants of @-mentions in Github discussions

verfasst von: David Kavaler, Premkumar Devanbu, Vladimir Filkov

Erschienen in: Empirical Software Engineering | Ausgabe 6/2019

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Open Source Software (OSS) project success relies on crowd contributions. When an issue arises in pull-request based systems, @-mentions are used to call on people to task; previous studies have shown that @-mentions in discussions are associated with faster issue resolution. In most projects there may be many developers who could technically handle a variety of tasks. But OSS supports dynamic teams distributed across a wide variety of social and geographic backgrounds, as well as levels of involvement. It is, then, important to know whom to call on, i.e., who can be relied or trusted with important task-related duties, and why. In this paper, we sought to understand which observable socio-technical attributes of developers can be used to build good models of them being future @-mentioned in GitHub issues and pull request discussions. We built overall and project-specific predictive models of future @-mentions, in order to capture the determinants of @-mentions in each of two hundred GitHub projects, and to understand if and how those determinants differ between projects. We found that visibility, expertise, and productivity are associated with an increase in @-mentions, while responsiveness is not, in the presence of a number of control variables. Also, we find that though project-specific differences exist, the overall model can be used for cross-project prediction, indicating its GitHub-wide utility.

Vorheriger Artikel How does code style inconsistency affect pull request integration? An exploratory study on 117 GitHub projects

Nächster Artikel A study of build inflation in 30 million CPAN builds on 13 Perl versions and 10 operating systems

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

E.g., developers of upstream libraries rarely respond in the downstream project.

Developers were asked about communication methods, not explicitly the @-mention.

Described in Section 4.2, a reply @-mention is directed towards someone already in the discussion; a call @-mention is directed towards someone not yet in the discussion. In our data, there is indeed a very high correlation between reply @-mentions and discussion length (0.812); however, there is a relatively low correlation between call @-mentions and discussion length (0.283). As our focus is on call @-mentions, correlation between reply @-mentions and discussion length is not a threat.

https://github.com/PyGithub/PyGithub

PyGithub did not handle properly some Null responses from GitHub’s API.

Note that pull requests are a subset of issues.

Though we do use outdegree in our model as well.

E.g., standard algorithms require a full adjacency matrix to be in memory at once; memory will be exhausted for networks of our size.

This measure is originally called d by Bluthgen et al., but we will use δ here to reserve d to represent developers.

We do not use \(\mathcal {MAF}\), we use an analogous form for our social networks.

https://help.github.com/articles/closing-issues-using-keywords/

We use issues fixed before closing as proxy for bugs; a higher value need not imply lack of aptitude, but it indicates a change in expected coding behavior and expertise.

\(\mathcal {ISS_{\kappa }}\) is not used for the zero component; it is undefined when call mentions are 0.

https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/performance/prpl-pattern/

We could not perform this in-depth study for discussions not in English.

Ackerman AF, Fowler PJ, Ebenau RG (1984) Software inspections and the industrial production of software. In: Proceedings of a symposium on Software validation: inspection-testing-verification-alternatives. Elsevier North-Holland, Inc, pp 13–40

Allison P (2012) When can you safely ignore multicollinearity? https://statisticalhorizons.com/multicollinearity

Bandura A (1973) Aggression: A social learning analysis. Prentice-Hall

Bandura A, Walters RH (1977) Social learning theory

Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the royal statistical society. Series B (Methodological) pp 289–300MathSciNetMATH

Bird C, Gourley A, Devanbu P, Swaminathan A, Hsu G (2007) Open borders? immigration in open source projects. In: The Fourth international workshop on mining software repositories

Bird C, Rigby PC, Barr ET, Hamilton DJ, German DM, Devanbu P (2009) The promises and perils of mining git. In: 6th IEEE international working conference on mining software repositories, 2009. MSR’09, pp 1–10. IEEE

Blüthgen N, Menzel F, Blüthgen N (2006) Measuring specialization in species interaction networks. BMC Ecol 6(1):9CrossRef

Brenkert GG (1998) Trust, business and business ethics: an introduction. Bus Ethics Q 8(2):195–203CrossRef

Brockner J (1996) Understanding the interaction between procedural and distributive justice: The role of trust

Burke M, Marlow C, Lento T (2009) Feed me: motivating newcomer contribution in social network sites. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 945–954. ACM

Burke M, Marlow C, Lento T (2010) Social network activity and social well-being. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 1909–1912. ACM

Calefato F, Lanubile F, Novielli N (2017) A preliminary analysis on the effects of propensity to trust in distributed software development. In: 2017 IEEE 12th international conference on global software engineering (ICGSE), pp 56–60. IEEE

Cameron AC, Trivedi PK (2013) Regression analysis of count data, vol 53. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef

Casalnuovo C, Vasilescu B, Devanbu P, Filkov V (2015) Developer onboarding in github: the role of prior social links and language experience. In: Proceedings of the 2015 10th joint meeting on foundations of software engineering, pp 817–828. ACM

Chow SC, Shao J, Wang H, Lokhnygina Y (2017) Sample size calculations in clinical research. Chapman and Hall/CRC

Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences

Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, Aiken LS (2013) Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge

da Costa DA, McIntosh S, Shang W, Kulesza U, Coelho R, Hassan AE (2017) A framework for evaluating the results of the szz approach for identifying bug-introducing changes. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 43(7):641–657CrossRef

Dabbish L, Stuart C, Tsay J, Herbsleb J (2012) Social coding in github: transparency and collaboration in an open software repository. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp 1277–1286. ACM

Dourish P, Chalmers M (1994) Running out of space: Models of information navigation. In: Short paper presented at HCI, vol 94, pp 23–26

Ducheneaut N (2005) Socialization in an open source software community: A socio-technical analysis. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 14(4):323–368CrossRef

Faraway JJ (2014) Linear models with R CRC press

Gallivan MJ (2001) Striking a balance between trust and control in a virtual organization: a content analysis of open source software case studies. Inf Syst J 11 (4):277–304MathSciNetCrossRef

Gharehyazie M, Posnett D, Filkov V (2013) Social activities rival patch submission for prediction of developer initiation in oss projects. In: 2013 29th IEEE international conference on software maintenance (ICSM), pp 340–349. IEEE

Gharehyazie M, Posnett D, Vasilescu B, Filkov V (2015) Developer initiation and social interactions in oss: A case study of the apache software foundation. Empir Softw Eng 20(5):1318–1353CrossRef

Good IJ (1953) The population frequencies of species and the estimation of population parameters. Biometrika 40(3-4):237–264MathSciNetCrossRef

Handy C (1995) Trust and the virtual organization. Harv Bus Rev 73(3):40–51

Hossain L, Zhu D (2009) Social networks and coordination performance of distributed software development teams. J High Technol Managem Res 20(1):52–61CrossRef

Husted BW (1998) The ethical limits of trust in business relations. Bus Ethics Q 8(2):233–248CrossRef

Ibrahim WM, Bettenburg N, Shihab E, Adams B, Hassan AE (2010) Should i contribute to this discussion?. In: 2010 7th IEEE working conference on mining software repositories (MSR), pp 181–190. IEEE

Inglehan R (1999) Trust, well-being and democracy. Democracy and trust pp 88

Jarvenpaa SL, Knoll K, Leidner DE (1998) Is anybody out there? antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. J Manag Inf Syst 14(4):29–64CrossRef

Jones TM, Bowie NE (1998) Moral hazards on the road to the “virtual” corporation. Bus Ethics Q 8(2):273–292CrossRef

Kalliamvakou E, Damian D, Blincoe K, Singer L, German DM (2015) Open source-style collaborative development practices in commercial projects using github. In: Proceedings of the 37th international conference on software engineering-volume 1, pp 574–585. IEEE Press

Kavaler D, Sirovica S, Hellendoorn V, Aranovich R, Filkov V (2017) Perceived language complexity in github issue discussions and their effect on issue resolution. In: Proceedings of the 32nd IEEE/ACM international conference on automated software engineering, pp 72–83. IEEE Press

Kim S, Zimmermann T, Pan K, James Jr E, et al. (2006) Automatic identification of bug-introducing changes. In: ASE’06. 21st IEEE/ACM international conference on automated software engineering, 2006, pp 81–90. IEEE

Kramer RM, Tyler TR (1996) Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research. Sage

Lee MJ, Ferwerda B, Choi J, Hahn J, Moon JY, Kim J (2013) Github developers use rockstars to overcome overflow of news. In: CHI’13 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, pp 133–138. ACM

Matter D, Kuhn A, Nierstrasz O (2009) Assigning bug reports using a vocabulary-based expertise model of developers. In: MSR’09. 6th IEEE international working conference on mining software repositories, 2009, pp 131–140. IEEE

McDonald N, Goggins S (2013) Performance and participation in open source software on github. In: CHI’13 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, pp 139–144. ACM

McKnight DH, Choudhury V, Kacmar C (2002) Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Inf Syst Res 13(3):334–359CrossRef

Mockus A, Herbsleb JD (2002) Expertise browser: a quantitative approach to identifying expertise. In: Proceedings of the 24rd international conference on software engineering, 2002. ICSE 2002, pp 503–512. IEEE

Murphy G, Cubranic D (2004) Automatic bug triage using text categorization. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on software engineering & knowledge engineering. Citeseer

Newton K (2001) Trust, social capital, civil society, and democracy. Int Polit Sci Rev 22(2):201–214CrossRef

Oeldorf-Hirsch A, Sundar SS (2015) Posting, commenting, and tagging: Effects of sharing news stories on facebook. Comput Hum Behav 44:240–249CrossRef

O’Leary M, Orlikowski W, Yates J (2002) Distributed work over the centuries: Trust and control in the hudson’s bay company, 1670-1826. Distributed work, pp 27–54

Posnett D, D’Souza R, Devanbu P, Filkov V (2013) Dual ecological measures of focus in software development. In: Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on software engineering, pp 452–461. IEEE Press

Qiu L, Lin H, Leung AKY (2013) Cultural differences and switching of in-group sharing behavior between an american (facebook) and a chinese (renren) social networking site. J Cross-Cult Psychol 44(1):106–121CrossRef

Robert LP, Denis AR, Hung YTC (2009) Individual swift trust and knowledge-based trust in face-to-face and virtual team members. J Manag Inf Syst 26 (2):241–279CrossRef

Rodrıguez G (2013) Models for count data with overdispersion

Rodríguez-Pérez G, Zaidman A, Serebrenik A, Robles G, González-Barahona JM (2018) What if a bug has a different origin? making sense of bugs without an explicit bug introducing change. In: Proceedings of the 12th ACM/IEEE international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement, p 52. ACM

Saavedra R, Earley PC, Van Dyne L (1993) Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. J Appl Psychol 78(1):61CrossRef

Sato Y, Arita S (2004) Impact of globalization on social mobility in Japan and korea: Focusing on middle classes in fluid societies. Int J Jpn Sociol 13(1):36–52CrossRef

Śliwerski J, Zimmermann T, Zeller A (2005) When do changes induce fixes?. In: ACM sigsoft software engineering notes, vol 30, pp 1–5. ACMCrossRef

Steinmacher I, Conte T, Gerosa MA, Redmiles D (2015) Social barriers faced by newcomers placing their first contribution in open source software projects. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing, pp 1379–1392. ACM

Steinmacher I, Conte TU, Treude C, Gerosa MA (2016) Overcoming open source project entry barriers with a portal for newcomers. In: International conference on software engineering

Stolcke A, Ries K, Coccaro N, Shriberg E, Bates R, Jurafsky D, Taylor P, Martin R, Van Ess-Dykema C, Meteer M (2000) Dialogue act modeling for automatic tagging and recognition of conversational speech. Comput Linguist 26 (3):339–373CrossRef

Tsay J, Dabbish L, Herbsleb J (2014) Let’s talk about it: evaluating contributions through discussion in github. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on foundations of software engineering, pp 144–154. ACM

Vandekerckhove J, Matzke D, Wagenmakers EJ (2015) Model comparison and the principle. In: The Oxford handbook of computational and mathematical psychology, vol 300. Oxford Library of Psychology

Vuong QH (1989) Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society pp 307–333MathSciNetCrossRef

Yu Y, Wang H, Yin G, Wang T (2016) Reviewer recommendation for pull-requests in github: What can we learn from code review and bug assignment? Inf Softw Technol 74:204–218CrossRef

Yu Y, Yin G, Wang H, Wang T (2014) Exploring the patterns of social behavior in github. In: Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on crowd-based software development methods and technologies, pp 31–36. ACM

Zhang Y, Wang H, Yin G, Wang T, Yu Y (2015) Exploring the use of@-mention to assist software development in github. In: Proceedings of the 7th Asia-pacific symposium on internetware, pp 83–92. ACM

Zhang Y, Wang H, Yin G, Wang T, Yu Y (2017) Social media in github: the role of @-mention in assisting software development. Science China Information Sciences 60(3):032102CrossRef

Zucker LG (1986) Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1840–1920. Research in organizational behavior

Titel: Whom are you going to call? determinants of @-mentions in Github discussions
verfasst von: David Kavaler
Premkumar Devanbu
Vladimir Filkov
Publikationsdatum: 07.06.2019
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Empirical Software Engineering / Ausgabe 6/2019
Print ISSN: 1382-3256
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7616
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-019-09728-3

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2019

iPerfDetector: Characterizing and detecting performance anti-patterns in iOS applications

Evolutionary Fuzzing of Android OS Vendor System Services

Mining non-functional requirements from App store reviews

Fostering good coding practices through individual feedback and gamification: an industrial case study

Guest Editorial: Special Issue on Software Engineering for Mobile Applications

ESSMArT way to manage customer requests

Premium Partner