@proceedings {1900,
	title = {Understanding When to Adopt a Library: A Case Study on ASF Projects},
	volume = {496},
	year = {2017},
	month = {05/2017},
	pages = {128-138},
	publisher = {Springer},
	abstract = {Software libraries are widely used by both industrial and open source client projects. Ideally, a client user of a library should adopt the latest version that the library project releases. However, sometimes the latest version is not better than a previous version. This is because the latest version may include additional developer effort to test and integrate all changed features. In this study, our main goal is to better understand the relationship between adoption of library versions and its release cycle. Specifically, we conducted an empirical study of release cycles for 23 libraries and how they were adopted by 415 Apache Software Foundation (ASF) client projects. Our findings show that software projects are quicker to update earlier rapid-release libraries compared to library projects with a longer release cycle. Moreover, results suggest that software projects are more likely to adopt the latest version of a rapid-release library compared to libraries with a longer release cycles.},
	keywords = {adoption, apache, apache software foundation, libraries},
	doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-57735-7_13},
	url = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-57735-7_13},
	author = {Ihara, Akinori and Daiki Fujibayashi and Hirohiko Suwa and Raula Gaikovina Kula and Kenichi Matsumoto}
}
@inbook {Hirao2016,
	title = {The Impact of a Low Level of Agreement Among Reviewers in a Code Review Process},
	booktitle = {Open Source Systems: Integrating Communities: 12th IFIP WG 2.13 International Conference, OSS 2016, Gothenburg, Sweden, May 30 - June 2, 2016, Proceedings},
	year = {2016},
	pages = {97{\textendash}110},
	publisher = {Springer International Publishing},
	organization = {Springer International Publishing},
	address = {Cham},
	abstract = {Software code review systems are commonly used in software development. In these systems, many patches are submitted to improve the quality. To verify the quality, voting is commonly used by contributors; however, there still exists a major problem, namely, that reviewers do not always simply reach a broad agreement. In our previous study, we found that consensus is not usually reached, implying that an individual reviewer{\textquoteright}s final decision usually differs from that of the majority of the other reviewers. In this study, we further investigate the reasons why such situations often occur, and provide suggestions for better handling of these problems. Our analysis of the Qt and OpenStack project datasets allow us to suggest that a patch owner should select more appropriate reviewers who often agree with others{\textquoteright} decisions.
},
	isbn = {978-3-319-39225-7},
	doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-39225-7_8},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39225-7_8},
	author = {Hirao, Toshiki and Ihara, Akinori and Ueda, Yuki and Phannachitta, Passakorn and Matsumoto, Ken-ichi},
	editor = {Kevin Crowston and Hammouda, Imed and Lundell, Bj{\"o}rn and Gregorio Robles and Gamalielsson, Jonas and Juho Lindman}
}
@proceedings {1763,
	title = {A Dataset of High Impact Bugs: Manually-Classified Issue Reports},
	year = {2015},
	month = {05/2015},
	publisher = {IEEE},
	abstract = {The importance of supporting test and maintenance
activities in software development has been increasing, since
recent software systems have become large and complex. Although
in the field of Mining Software Repositories (MSR) there
are many promising approaches to predicting, localizing, and
triaging bugs, most of them do not consider impacts of each
bug on users and developers but rather treat all bugs with equal
weighting, excepting a few studies on high impact bugs including
security, performance, blocking, and so forth. To make MSR
techniques more actionable and effective in practice, we need
deeper understandings of high impact bugs. In this paper we
introduced our dataset of high impact bugs which was created
by manually reviewing four thousand issue reports in four open
source projects (Ambari, Camel, Derby and Wicket).},
	keywords = {ambari, camel, derby, wicket},
	url = {http://oss.sys.wakayama-u.ac.jp/publications/pman3.cgi?DOWNLOAD=141},
	attachments = {https://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/5594a518.pdf},
	author = {Ohira, Masao and Yutaro Kashiwa and Yosuke Yamatani and Hayato Yoshiyuki and Yoshiya Maeda and Nachai Limsettho and Keisuke Fujino and Hata, Hideaki and Ihara, Akinori and Kenichi Matsumoto}
}
@conference {1704,
	title = {Industry Questions about Open Source Software in Business: Research Directions and Potential Answers},
	booktitle = {2014 6th International Workshop on Empirical Software Engineering in Practice (IWESEP)2014 6th International Workshop on Empirical Software Engineering in Practice},
	year = {2014},
	pages = {55 - 59},
	publisher = {IEEE},
	organization = {IEEE},
	address = {Osaka, Japan},
	abstract = {As open source software (OSS) has become an integral part of today{\textquoteright}s software businesses, many software companies rely on OSS to develop their customer solutions and products. On the other hand, they face various concerns in using OSS, such as technical support, quality, security and licensing issues. This paper focuses on OSS-related FAQ in industry, and tries to answer them or to provide research directions based on lessons learned from recent mining OSS repository researches.
},
	doi = {10.1109/IWESEP.2014.12},
	author = {Ihara, Akinori and Monden, Akito and Matsumoto, Ken-ichi}
}
