An Empirical Study on the Structural Complexity Introduced by Core and Peripheral Developers in Free Software Projects

Terceiro, Antonio; Rios, Luiz Romário Santana; Chávez, Christina

doi:10.1109/sbes.2010.26

Cited by 28 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…ity of the project [38]. While most of the prior studies focused on estimating the number of core developers, their contributions, and their roles in the project, we focus on developing a method to identify the core developers and how their code review outcomes differ from those of the peripheral developers.…”

Section: Core-periphery Structure In Oss Communitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of developer reputation on code review outcomes in OSS projects

Bosu

Carver

2014

Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: 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. Goal: To identify how an OSS developer's reputation affects the outcome of his/her code review requests. Method: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: We recommend that projects allocate resources or create tool support to triage the code review requests to motivate prospective developers through quick feedback.

show abstract

Section: Core-periphery Structure In Oss Communitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of developer reputation on code review outcomes in OSS projects

Bosu

Carver

2014

Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, we have witnessed the growing interest in the study of the development processes used by FLOSS projects [49], [50], [20], [18]. By understanding how FLOSS projects work, which challenges they face and how they succeed (or not succeed), we can improve the general body of knowledge on software development.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In another study, our group analyzed the impact of changes in the licenses of 756 FLOSS projects over 44 months to show how these changes affect the attractiveness of these projects [19]. In yet another study we analyzed the full history of 7 FLOSS web server projects, containing 13553 software changes, in order to investigate developers' level of participation in the project as a predictor for variations in structural complexity [20].…”

Section: B Using Data From Floss Projects In Software Engineering Rementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Research on FLOSS development has brought a series of interesting topics into the Software Engineering research agenda, such as the social structure of development communities [23], [24], [6], [7], communication and work flow patterns in FLOSS projects, [25], [26], developer evolution and participation [27], [20], and attractiveness of FLOSS projects [19], [18].…”

Section: B Using Data From Floss Projects In Software Engineering Rementioning

confidence: 99%

“…They conducted a study about that using eight FLOSS projects (Bugzilla, Eclipse Epiphany, Evolution, Firefox, GCC, Thunderbird, and Tomcat). Terceiro et al [20] studied how the participation of developers in FLOSS projects can be associated with the structural complexity of the project source code. Meirelles et al [18] analyzed source code attributes as predictors for the attractiveness of FLOSS projects, i.e., its ability to attract and retain users and developers, which is crucial for the success of the project.…”

Section: ) Research About Flossmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Free and Open Source Software Development and Research: Opportunities for Software Engineering

Kon

Meirelles

Lago

et al. 2011

2011 25th Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Free/Libre/Open Source Software (FLOSS) communities have produced a large amount of valuable software that is directly or indirectly used daily by any person with access to a computer. The field of Software Engineering studies processes, mechanisms, tools, and frameworks for the development of software artifacts. Historically, however, most of Software Engineering research and education does not benefit from the large and rich source of data and experimental testbeds offered by FLOSS projects and their hundreds of millions of lines of working code. In this paper, we discuss how Software Engineering research and education can greatly benefit from the wealth of information available in the FLOSS ecosystem. We then evaluate how FLOSS has been used, up to now, by papers published in the Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering. Finally, we present an agenda for the future, proposing concrete ways to exploit the synergies between research and education in Software Engineering and FLOSS projects.

show abstract

Automated construction of reference model for software remodularization through software evolution

Meng,

Yu,

Chong

et al. 2024

J Software Evolu Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The undocumented evolution of a software project and its underlying architecture underscores the need to recover the architecture from the software's implementation‐level artifacts. Despite the existence of various software remodularization techniques, they often suffer from inaccuracies, and evaluating their effectiveness is challenging due to the absence of accurate “ground‐truth” architectures or reference models. Prior studies on reference model construction are time‐consuming and labor‐intensive as it heavily relies on manual analysis by domain experts. Besides, other existing approaches that directly utilize the directory or package structure of the latest version can be unreliable, lacking in‐depth analysis of the employed software structure. To address the above limitations, in this paper, we propose Automated Construction of Reference Model (ACRM), an approach for automatically constructing reference models by assigning weights to classes for various software projects using the metadata of all software versions and historical maintenance records. We evaluate ACRM through both quantitative and qualitative analyses. The experiment results provide quantitative validation and show that the generated reference models are reasonable, as confirmed by the relationship between proposed reference models and architectural smells or bugs. Furthermore, we conduct a survey among the practitioners from industry, to gain insights from practitioners' practices and further validate the generated reference models. The survey shows that, on average, 87% of the participants agree with the reference models generated by ACRM. Moreover, we propose an improved metric, wc2c, which analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of different types of software clustering techniques using the proposed reference models of the given software. Finally, we discuss the potential benefits of using ACRM in analyzed projects, particularly in terms of improving software quality, reducing maintenance costs, and enhancing developer productivity.

show abstract

An Empirical Study on the Structural Complexity Introduced by Core and Peripheral Developers in Free Software Projects

Cited by 28 publications

References 15 publications

Impact of developer reputation on code review outcomes in OSS projects

Impact of developer reputation on code review outcomes in OSS projects

Free and Open Source Software Development and Research: Opportunities for Software Engineering

Automated construction of reference model for software remodularization through software evolution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About