Impact of developer reputation on code review outcomes in OSS projects

Bosu, Amiangshu; Carver, Jeffrey C.

doi:10.1145/2652524.2652544

Cited by 67 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rigby et al (2014) find that the number of reviewers and the size of the patches can have an impact on the review timeliness and effectiveness. Bosu and Carver (2014) find that patch author reputation can have an impact on the first feedback interval, review interval, and patch acceptance rate. Armstrong et al (2017) find that code review medium (i.e., broadcast or unicast based peer review) can have an impact on the review effectiveness and quality.…”

Section: Background and Research Questionsmentioning

confidence: 85%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The impact of human factors on the participation decision of reviewers in modern code review

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern Code Review (MCR) plays a key role in software quality practices. In MCR process, a new patch (i.e., a set of code changes) is encouraged to be examined by reviewers in order to identify weaknesses in source code prior to an integration into main software repositories. To mitigate the risk of having future defects, prior work suggests that MCR should be performed with sufficient review participation. Indeed, recent work shows that a low number of participated reviewers is associated with poor software quality. However, there is a likely case that a new patch still suffers from poor review participation even though reviewers were invited. Hence, in this paper, we set out to investigate the factors that are associated with the participation decision of an invited reviewer. Through a case study of 230,090 patches spread across the Android, LibreOffice, OpenStack and Qt systems, we find that (1) 16%-66% of patches have at least one invited reviewer who did not respond to the review invitation; (2) human factors play an important role in predicting whether or not an invited reviewer will participate in a review; (3) a review participation rate of an invited reviewers and code authoring experience of an invited reviewer are highly associated with the participation decision of an invited reviewer. These results can help practitioners better understand about how human factors associate with the participation decision of reviewers and serve as guidelines for inviting reviewers, leading to a better inviting decision and a better reviewer participation.

show abstract

Section: Background and Research Questionsmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…An experienced patch author may widely known for his/her capability which encourage reviewers to work with (Bosu and Carver, 2014).…”

Section: Patch Author Code Authoring Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of human factors on the participation decision of reviewers in modern code review

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some studies on epistemic communities, especially in the case of open source software, stressed the importance of the core members [17] [13] [18]. In this context, they define the coreperiphery structure in terms of members' activity in the project, where a small group of highly active core members are responsible for most of the contribution to the project and a large and loosely coupled group of periphery members support the others.…”

Section: Core Member Constitutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3.2.2 Effects of reputation diversity on the quality of knowledge produced by a virtual group User reputations are computed according to the number of their past contributions, the quality of produced articles and the quantity of succeeding edits (see [22]). Reputation systems are considered one of the primary factors for success of online communities [18]. By exploring German Wikipedia, [22] showed that high quality articles are not necessarily written by a huge number of people, but the most important is to be written by contributors with reputation for high quality contributions.…”

Section: Effects Of Initial Group Size On the Quality Of Knowledge Prmentioning

confidence: 99%

Online Communities, Teams Characteristics, and Knowledge Quality

Rezgui¹,

Jullien²

2016

Collaboration in a Hyperconnected World

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Understanding the characteristics of a "good" team and members diversity affects the outcomes group in a question of growing importance for the organizations, for their competitive advantage relies more and more on innovation, produced by virtual cooperation on knowledge production. In this study, we propose a method to forecast the future quality of an online knowledge production community or online epistemic community by studying the composition of the group who initiated them (the "core members" of, in this case, an article). First, we set a team building period which is defined as the period of 120 days after article creation in order to construct this "core members" group. Second, we explore the effects on article quality of both group and member diversity. Core members' characteristics are learned from their previous behavior. The analysis is based on the French Wikipedia project. Our results show that the most important attributes of initial core member to have a high quality article are average reputation, diversity's contribution, participation, and group size. We also find no significant effects of experience diversity and reputation during the team building period.

show abstract

“…Existing evidence of newcomer-specific effects in code review is limited and contradictory. Bosu et al [12] used social network analysis to identify core and peripheral developers in several OSS projects using Gerrit [13], and compared some characteristics of code reviews between these categories of developers. They found that peripheral developers' changes are less likely to be merged and take longer to review.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Code review for newcomers

Kovalenko

Bacchelli

2018

Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Onboarding is a critical stage in the tenure of software developers with a project, because meaningful contribution requires familiarity with the codebase. Some software teams employ practices, such as mentoring, to help new developers get accustomed faster. Code review, i.e., the manual inspection of code changes, is an opportunity for sharing knowledge and helping with onboarding. In this study, we investigate whether and how contributions from developers with low experience in a project do receive a different treatment during code review. We compare reviewers' experience, metrics of reviewers' attention, and change merge rate between changes from newcomers and from more experienced authors in 60 active open source projects. We find that the only phenomenon that is consistent across the vast majority of projects is a lower merge rate for newcomers' changes.

show abstract

Impact of developer reputation on code review outcomes in OSS projects

Cited by 67 publications

References 32 publications

The impact of human factors on the participation decision of reviewers in modern code review

The impact of human factors on the participation decision of reviewers in modern code review

Online Communities, Teams Characteristics, and Knowledge Quality

Code review for newcomers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About