2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2021.106665
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

“Won’t We Fix this Issue?” Qualitative characterization and automated identification of wontfix issues on GitHub

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The experimental results show that this method can determine whether the issue is a wontfix issue when submitted. The similarities between these studies and our study are that they employ the title and description of the issue on GitHub to build a JIT issue prediction model, but the difference is that our study is to predict CPC issues, while other studies 75–78 mainly predict other types of issues or assign labels to issues.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The experimental results show that this method can determine whether the issue is a wontfix issue when submitted. The similarities between these studies and our study are that they employ the title and description of the issue on GitHub to build a JIT issue prediction model, but the difference is that our study is to predict CPC issues, while other studies 75–78 mainly predict other types of issues or assign labels to issues.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are also some research works [75][76][77][78] to build models to predict different types of issues on GitHub. Herbold et al 75 proposed a method to predict whether an issue on GitHub is a bug issue by considering the difference between the issue title and description.…”
Section: Jit Bug Predictionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Driven by our observation that several issues in JIRA were resolved in later versions after their reporting, and supported by existing literature research [68], we examined the later versions of the DHIS2 web API, from version 2.32 to 2.34. This al-lows us to also better understand and interpret the false positive predictions (i.e., endpoints that were predicted changed but remained unchanged).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Gathering, processing and effectively using this feedback, which originates from different sources, can be challenging. Providers have confirmed that they spend a significant time handling consumer requests and their bug reports [68]. Frequently, these requests are duplicated, lack relevance, contain errors, or are misclassified.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%