@conference {Herraiz:2008:TSB:1370750.1370786,
	title = {Towards a simplification of the bug report form in eclipse},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2008 international working conference on Mining software repositories},
	series = {MSR {\textquoteright}08},
	year = {2008},
	pages = {145{\textendash}148},
	publisher = {ACM},
	organization = {ACM},
	address = {New York, NY, USA},
	abstract = {We believe that the bug report form of Eclipse contains too many fields, and that for some fields, there are too many options. In this MSR challenge report, we focus in the case of the severity field. That field contains seven different levels of severity. Some of them seem very similar, and it is hard to distinguish among them. Users assign severity, and developers give priority to the reports depending on their severity. However, if users can not distinguish well among the various severity options, they will probably assign different priorities to bugs that require the same priority. We study the mean time to close bugs reported in Eclipse, and how the severity assigned by users affects this time. The results shows that classifying by time to close, there are less clusters of bugs than levels of severity. We therefore conclude that there is a need to make a simpler bug report form.},
	keywords = {bug fixing, bug report, bug tracking system, classification, eclipse, msr challenge, severity},
	isbn = {978-1-60558-024-1},
	doi = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1370750.1370786},
	url = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1370750.1370786},
	author = {Herraiz, Israel and Daniel M. German and Jesus M. Gonzalez-Barahona and Gregorio Robles}
}
@conference {Hindle:2008:LCT:1370750.1370773,
	title = {What do large commits tell us?: a taxonomical study of large commits},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2008 international working conference on Mining software repositories},
	series = {MSR {\textquoteright}08},
	year = {2008},
	month = {05/2008},
	pages = {99{\textendash}108},
	publisher = {ACM},
	organization = {ACM},
	address = {New York, NY, USA},
	abstract = {Research in the mining of software repositories has frequently ignored commits that include a large number of files (we call these large commits). The main goal of this paper is to understand the rationale behind large commits, and if there is anything we can learn from them. To address this goal we performed a case study that included the manual classification of large commits of nine open source projects. The contributions include a taxonomy of large commits, which are grouped according to their intention. We contrast large commits against small commits and show that large commits are more perfective while small commits are more corrective. These large commits provide us with a window on the development practices of maintenance teams.},
	keywords = {boost, bug fixing, egroupware, enlightenment, evolution, firebird, large commits, maintenance, mysql, postgresql, samba, software evolution, source control system, spring},
	isbn = {978-1-60558-024-1},
	doi = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1370750.1370773},
	url = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1370750.1370773},
	attachments = {https://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/p99-hindle.pdf},
	author = {Hindle, Abram and Daniel M. German and Holt, Ric}
}
