Amiangshu Bosu
Jeffrey C. Carver
ABSTRACT
<u>Context:</u> Gaining an identity and building a good reputation are important motivations for Open Source Software (OSS) developers. It is unclear whether these motivations have any actual impact on OSS project success. <u>Goal:</u> To identify how an OSS developer's reputation affects the outcome of his/her code review requests. <u>Method:</u> We conducted a social network analysis (SNA) of the code review data from eight popular OSS projects. Working on the assumption that core developers have better reputation than peripheral developers, we developed an approach, Core Identification using K-means (CIK) to divide the OSS developers into core and periphery groups based on six SNA centrality measures. We then compared the outcome of the code review process for members of the two groups. <u>Results:</u> The results suggest that the core developers receive quicker first feedback on their review request, complete the review process in shorter time, and are more likely to have their code changes accepted into the project codebase. Peripheral developers may have to wait 2 - 19 times (or 12 - 96 hours) longer than core developers for the review process of their code to complete. <u>Conclusion:</u> We recommend that projects allocate resources or create tool support to triage the code review requests to motivate prospective developers through quick feedback.
- A. Bacchelli and C. Bird. Expectations, outcomes, and challenges of modern code review. In Proceedings of the 2013 Int'l Conf. on Soft. Eng., pages 712--721, 2013. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- V. R. Basili, F. Shull, and F. Lanubile. Building knowledge through families of experiments. IEEE Transactions on Soft. Eng., 25(4):456--473, 1999. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Bastian, S. Heymann, and M. Jacomy. Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. In Proc. 3rd Int'l. AAAI Conf. on Weblogs and Social Media. San Jose, California, 2009.Google Scholar
- C. Bird, A. Gourley, P. Devanbu, M. Gertz, and A. Swaminathan. Mining email social networks. In Proc. 3rd Int'l Wksp. on Mining Soft. Repositories, pages 137--143. Shanghai, China, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Bird, D. Pattison, R. D'Souza, V. Filkov, and P. Devanbu. Latent social structure in open source projects. In Proc. 16th ACM SIGSOFT Int'l Symp. on Foundations of Soft. Eng., pages 24--35. Atlanta, Georgia, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Bonacich. Some unique properties of eigenvector centrality. Social Networks, 29(4):555--564, 2007.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. P. Borgatti and M. G. Everett. Models of core/periphery structures. Social networks, 21(4):375--395, 2000.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Bosu and J. C. Carver. Peer code review in open source communities using reviewboard. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM Wksp. on Evaluation and Usability of Prog. Language and Tools, pages 17--24, Tucson, Arizona, USA, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Bosu and J. C. Carver. Impact of peer code review on peer impression formation: A survey. In 2013 ACM/IEEE Int'l Symposium on Empirical Soft. Engineering and Measurement, pages 133--142, Baltimore, MD, USA, 2013.Google Scholar
- A. Bosu and J. C. Carver. How do social interaction networks influence peer impressions formation? a case study. In Open Source Software: Mobile Open Source Technologies, volume 427 of IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, pages 31--40, 2014.Google Scholar
- K. Crowston and J. Howison. The social structure of free and open source software development. First Monday, 10(2--7).Google Scholar
- T. Dinh-Trong and J. Bieman. The freebsd project: a replication case study of open source development. IEEE Transactions on Soft. Eng., 31(6):481--494, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. Ducheneaut. Socialization in an open source software community: A socio-technical analysis. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 14(4):323--368, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. G. Everett and S. P. Borgatti. Peripheries of cohesive subsets. Social Networks, 21(4):397--407, 2000.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. E. Fagan. Design and code inspections to reduce errors in program development. IBM Sys. Jnl., 15(3):182--211, 1976. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. T. Fielding. Shared leadership in the apache project. Communications of the ACM, 42(4):42--43, 1999. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Freeman. The development of social network analysis: A study in the sociology of science, volume 1. Empirical Press Vancouver, 2004.Google Scholar
- L. C. Freeman. A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, pages 35--41, 1977.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Gacek and B. Arief. The many meanings of open source. Soft., IEEE, 21(1):34--40, 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
- I.-H. Hann, J. Roberts, and S. Slaughter. Why developers participate in open source soft. projects: An empirical investigation. ICIS 2004 Proceedings, page 66, 2004.Google Scholar
- K. Lakhani. The Core and Periphery in Distributed and Self-organizing Systems. PhD thesis, Doctoral Dissertation, Sloan School of Management, MIT, 2006.Google Scholar
- K. R. Lakhani and R. G. Wolf. Why hackers do what they do: Understanding motivation and effort in free/open source software projects. Perspectives on free and open source software, 1:3--22, 2005.Google Scholar
- G. K. Lee and R. E. Cole. From a firm-based to a community-based model of knowledge creation: The case of the linux kernel development. Organization science, 14(6):633--649, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Y. Long and K. Siau. Social network structures in open source software development teams. Journal of Database Management (JDM), 18(2):25--40, 2007.Google Scholar
- J. MacQueen et al. Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In Proceedings of the fifth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability, volume 1, page 14. California, USA, 1967.Google Scholar
- M. L. Markus, B. Manville, and E. Agres. What makes a virtual organization work? Sloan Management Review, 42(1):13--26, 2000.Google Scholar
- J. Martinez-Romo, G. Robles, J. M. Gonzalez-Barahona, and M. Ortuño-Perez. Using social network analysis techniques to study collaboration between a FLOSS community and a company. In Open Source Development, Communities and Quality, pages 171--186. Springer, 2008.Google Scholar
- A. Mockus, R. T. Fielding, and J. D. Herbsleb. Two case studies of open source software development: Apache and mozilla. ACM Transactions on Soft. Eng. Methodology, 11(3):309--346, July 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Mukadam, C. Bird, and P. C. Rigby. Gerrit soft. code review data from android. In Proceedings of the Tenth Int'l Wksp. on Mining Soft. Repositories, pages 45--48, 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Newman. Networks: An introduction. Oxford University Press, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Oezbek, L. Prechelt, and F. Thiel. The onion has cancer: Some social network analysis visualizations of open source project communication. In Proc. 3rd Int'l. Wksp. on Emerging Trends in Free/Libre/Open Source Soft. Research and Dev., pages 5--10. Cape Town, South Africa, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Page, S. Brin, R. Motwani, and T. Winograd. The pagerank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web. 1999.Google Scholar
- E. Raymond. Homesteading the noosphere, 2001.Google Scholar
- P. C. Rigby and C. Bird. Convergent contemporary software peer review practices. In Proceedings of the 2013 9th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Soft. Eng., pages 202--212, 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. C. Rigby, D. M. German, and M.-A. Storey. Open source software peer review practices: a case study of the Apache server. In Proc. of the 30th Int'l Conf. on Soft. Eng., ICSE '08, pages 541--550, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Robles, J. M. Gonzalez-Barahona, and I. Herraiz. Evolution of the core team of developers in libre software projects. In Mining Soft. Repositories, 2009. MSR'09. 6th IEEE Int'l Working Conf. on, pages 167--170. IEEE, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Sabidussi. The centrality index of a graph. Psychometrika, 31(4):581--603, 1966.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Terceiro, L. R. Rios, and C. Chavez. An empirical study on the structural complexity introduced by core and peripheral developers in free software projects. In 2010 Brazilian Symp. on Soft. Eng. (SBES), pages 21--29, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Wasserman. Social network analysis: Methods and applications, volume 8. Cambridge university press, 1994.Google Scholar
- Y. Ye and K. Kishida. Toward an understanding of the motivation of open source software developers. In Proceedings. 25th Int'l Conf. on Soft. Eng., ICSE 2003., pages 419--429. IEEE, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Impact of developer reputation on code review outcomes in OSS projects: an empirical investigation
Recommendations
Code review quality: how developers see it
ICSE '16: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software EngineeringIn a large, long-lived project, an effective code review process is key to ensuring the long-term quality of the code base. In this work, we study code review practices of a large, open source project, and we investigate how the developers themselves ...
Characteristics of the vulnerable code changes identified through peer code review
ICSE Companion 2014: Companion Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software EngineeringTo effectively utilize the efforts of scarce security experts, this study aims to provide empirical evidence about the characteristics of security vulnerabilities. Using a three-stage, manual analysis of peer code review data from 10 popular Open ...
Understanding code snippets in code reviews: a preliminary study of the OpenStack community
ICPC '22: Proceedings of the 30th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Program ComprehensionCode review is a mature practice for software quality assurance in software development with which reviewers check the code that has been committed by developers, and verify the quality of code. During the code review discussions, reviewers and ...
Comments