No abstract

No abstract

Abstract-Continuous Integration (CI) has become a disruptive innovation in software development: with proper tool support and adoption, positive effects have been demonstrated for pull request throughput and scaling up of project sizes. As any other innovation, adopting CI implies adapting existing practices in order to take full advantage of its potential, and "best practices" to that end have been proposed. Here we study the adaptation and evolution of code writing and submission, issue and pull request closing, and testing practices as TRAVIS CI is adopted by hundreds of established projects on GITHUB. Qualitatively, to help essentialize the quantitative results, we survey a sample of GITHUB developers about their experiences with adopting TRAVIS CI. Our findings suggest a more nuanced picture of how GITHUB teams are adapting to, and benefiting from, continuous integration technology than suggested by prior work.

No abstract

Background. Recent years have seen an increasing interest in cross-project defect prediction (CPDP), which aims to apply defect prediction models built on source projects to a target project. Currently, a variety of (complex) CPDP models have been proposed with a promising prediction performance. Problem. Most, if not all, of the existing CPDP models are not compared against those simple module size models that are easy to implement and have shown a good performance in defect prediction in the literature. Objective. We aim to investigate how far we have really progressed in the journey by comparing the performance in defect prediction between the existing CPDP models and simple module size models. Method. We first use module size in the target project to build two simple defect prediction models, ManualDown and ManualUp, which do not require any training data from source projects. ManualDown considers a larger module as more defect-prone, while ManualUp considers a smaller module as more defect-prone. Then, we take the following measures to ensure a fair comparison on the performance in defect prediction between the existing CPDP models and the simple module size models: using the same publicly available data sets, using the same performance indicators, and using the prediction performance reported in the original cross-project defect prediction studies. Result. The simple module size models have a prediction performance comparable or even superior to most of the existing CPDP models in the literature, including many newly proposed models. Conclusion. The results caution us that, if the prediction performance is the goal, the real progress in CPDP is not being achieved as it might have been envisaged. We hence recommend that future studies should include ManualDown/ManualUp as the baseline models for comparison when developing new CPDP models to predict defects in a complete target project.