@conference {WeiBgerber:2008:SPG:1370750.1370767,
	title = {Small patches get in!},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2008 international working conference on Mining software repositories},
	series = {MSR {\textquoteright}08},
	year = {2008},
	month = {05/2008},
	pages = {67{\textendash}76},
	publisher = {ACM},
	organization = {ACM},
	address = {New York, NY, USA},
	abstract = {While there is a considerable amount of research on analyzing the change information stored in software repositories, only few researcher have looked at software changes contained in email archives in form of patches. In this paper we look at the email archives of two open source projects and answer questions like the following: How many emails contain patches? How long does it take for a patch to be accepted? Does the size of the patch influence its chances to be accepted or the duration until it gets accepted? Obviously, the answers to these questions can be helpful for the authors of patches, in particular because some of the answers are surprising.},
	keywords = {case study, cvs, email, email archives, flac, mailing list, openafs, patch acceptance, patches, revision control, scm},
	isbn = {978-1-60558-024-1},
	doi = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1370750.1370767},
	url = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1370750.1370767},
	attachments = {https://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/p67-weissgerber.pdf},
	author = {Wei{\ss}gerber, Peter and Neu, Daniel and Diehl, Stephan}
}
@conference {Pohl:2008:DNM:1370114.1370135,
	title = {What dynamic network metrics can tell us about developer roles},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2008 international workshop on Cooperative and human aspects of software engineering (CHASE {\textquoteright}08)},
	series = {CHASE {\textquoteright}08},
	year = {2008},
	note = {paper d/l from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.217.4765

this particular paper focuses on building the SNA using co-authorship of files in Tomcat.},
	pages = {81{\textendash}84},
	publisher = {ACM},
	organization = {ACM},
	address = {New York, NY, USA},
	abstract = {Software development is heavily dependent on the participants of the process and their roles within the process. Each developer has his specific skills and interests and hence contributes to the project in a different way. While some programmers work on separate modules, others developers integrate these modules towards the final product. To identify such different groups of people one approach is to work with methods taken from social network analysis. To this end, a social network has to be defined in a suitable way, and appropriate analysis strategies have to be chosen. This paper shows how a network of software developers could be defined based on information in a software repository, and what it can possibly tell about roles of developers (and what not) in the process of the application server Tomcat.},
	keywords = {identifying roles, social network analysis},
	isbn = {978-1-60558-039-5},
	doi = {10.1145/1370114.1370135},
	url = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1370114.1370135},
	attachments = {https://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/10.1.1.217.4765.pdf},
	author = {Pohl, Mathias and Diehl, Stephan}
}
@conference {WeiBgerber:2006:RLE:1137983.1138011,
	title = {Are refactorings less error-prone than other changes?},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Mining software repositories},
	series = {MSR {\textquoteright}06},
	year = {2006},
	pages = {112{\textendash}118},
	publisher = {ACM},
	organization = {ACM},
	address = {New York, NY, USA},
	abstract = {Refactorings are program transformations which should preserve the program behavior. Consequently, we expect that during phases when there are mostly refactorings in the change history of a system, only few new bugs are introduced. For our case study we analyzed the version histories of several open source systems and reconstructed the refactorings performed. Furthermore, we obtained bug reports from various sources depending on the system. Based on this data we identify phases when the above hypothesis holds and those when it doesn{\textquoteright}t.},
	keywords = {argouml, bug reports, bugs, change history, jedit, junit, re-engineering, refactoring, reverse engineering, software evolution, version control},
	isbn = {1-59593-397-2},
	doi = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1137983.1138011},
	url = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1137983.1138011},
	attachments = {https://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/112AreRefactorings.pdf},
	author = {Wei{\ss}gerber, Peter and Diehl, Stephan}
}
@conference {WeiBgerber:2006:MRA:1137983.1138028,
	title = {Mining refactorings in ARGOUML},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Mining software repositories},
	series = {MSR {\textquoteright}06},
	year = {2006},
	note = {"To see if refactorings in ARGOUML have an effect on the occurrence of new bugs and on communication between the developers, we relate the refactorings to bug reports in ISSUEZILLA respectively to mails on the developer mailing list. "},
	pages = {175{\textendash}176},
	publisher = {ACM},
	organization = {ACM},
	address = {New York, NY, USA},
	abstract = {In this paper we combine the results of our refactoring reconstruc- tion technique with bug, mail and release information to perform process and bug analyses of the ARGOUML CVS archive.},
	keywords = {argouml, bug tracking, bugs, cvs, email, evolution, mining challenge, msr challenge, re-engineering, refactoring, release history},
	isbn = {1-59593-397-2},
	doi = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1137983.1138028},
	url = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1137983.1138028},
	attachments = {https://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/175MiningRefactorings.pdf},
	author = {Wei{\ss}gerber, Peter and Diehl, Stephan and G{\"o}rg, Carsten}
}
