@conference {Bougie:2011:TUT:1984701.1984707, title = {Towards understanding twitter use in software engineering: preliminary findings, ongoing challenges and future questions}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Web 2.0 for Software Engineering}, series = {Web2SE {\textquoteright}11}, year = {2011}, note = {paper d/l from http://www.thechiselgroup.org/publications/content/towards-understanding-twitter-use-software-engineering-preliminary-findings-ong "From this site, we selected the top 30 individuals for the topics Linux and Eclipse. We chose these two topics based on their potential to expose "tweeters" from a large operating system community as well as an IDE development community. We also decided to investigate a project for which all committers use Twitter. Through a colleague, we were informed that the MXUnit project lists the Twitter user names for all eight of its committers. The MXUnit project [5] is a small, open source ColdFusion test framework that is written as an Eclipse plug-in."}, pages = {31{\textendash}36}, publisher = {ACM}, organization = {ACM}, address = {New York, NY, USA}, abstract = {There has been some research conducted around the motivation for the use of Twitter and the value brought by micro-blogging tools to individuals and business environments. This paper builds on our understanding of how the phenomenon affects the population which birthed the technology: Software Engineers. We find that the Software Engineering community extensively leverages Twitter{\textquoteright}s capabilities for conversation and information sharing and that use of the tool is notably different between distinct Software Engineering groups. Our work exposes topics for future research and outlines some of the challenges in exploring this type of data.}, keywords = {eclipse, linux, mxunit, social media, software development, twitter, web 2.0}, isbn = {978-1-4503-0595-2}, doi = {10.1145/1984701.1984707}, url = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1984701.1984707}, attachments = {https://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/WEB2SE2011.pdf}, author = {Bougie, Gargi and Starke, Jamie and Storey, Margaret-Anne and Daniel M. German} } @conference {Bougie:2011:TUT:1984701.1984707, title = {Towards understanding twitter use in software engineering: preliminary findings, ongoing challenges and future questions}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Web 2.0 for Software Engineering}, series = {Web2SE {\textquoteright}11}, year = {2011}, note = {paper d/l from http://www.thechiselgroup.org/publications/content/towards-understanding-twitter-use-software-engineering-preliminary-findings-ong "From this site, we selected the top 30 individuals for the topics Linux and Eclipse. We chose these two topics based on their potential to expose "tweeters" from a large operating system community as well as an IDE development community. We also decided to investigate a project for which all committers use Twitter. Through a colleague, we were informed that the MXUnit project lists the Twitter user names for all eight of its committers. The MXUnit project [5] is a small, open source ColdFusion test framework that is written as an Eclipse plug-in."}, pages = {31{\textendash}36}, publisher = {ACM}, organization = {ACM}, address = {New York, NY, USA}, abstract = {There has been some research conducted around the motivation for the use of Twitter and the value brought by micro-blogging tools to individuals and business environments. This paper builds on our understanding of how the phenomenon affects the population which birthed the technology: Software Engineers. We find that the Software Engineering community extensively leverages Twitter{\textquoteright}s capabilities for conversation and information sharing and that use of the tool is notably different between distinct Software Engineering groups. Our work exposes topics for future research and outlines some of the challenges in exploring this type of data.}, keywords = {eclipse, linux, mxunit, social media, software development, twitter, web 2.0}, isbn = {978-1-4503-0595-2}, doi = {10.1145/1984701.1984707}, url = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1984701.1984707}, attachments = {https://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/WEB2SE2011_0.pdf}, author = {Bougie, Gargi and Starke, Jamie and Storey, Margaret-Anne and Daniel M. German} } @conference {Rigby:2011:UBB:1985793.1985867, title = {Understanding broadcast based peer review on open source software projects}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering}, series = {ICSE {\textquoteright}11}, year = {2011}, note = {http://helium.cs.uvic.ca/other/Rigby2011ICSE.pdf 5 projects}, pages = {541{\textendash}550}, publisher = {ACM}, organization = {ACM}, address = {New York, NY, USA}, abstract = {Software peer review has proven to be a successful technique in open source software (OSS) development. In contrast to industry, where reviews are typically assigned to specific individuals, changes are broadcast to hundreds of potentially interested stakeholders. Despite concerns that reviews may be ignored, or that discussions will deadlock because too many uninformed stakeholders are involved, we find that this approach works well in practice. In this paper, we describe an empirical study to investigate the mechanisms and behaviours that developers use to find code changes they are competent to review. We also explore how stakeholders interact with one another during the review process. We manually examine hundreds of reviews across five high profile OSS projects. Our findings provide insights into the simple, community-wide techniques that developers use to effectively manage large quantities of reviews. The themes that emerge from our study are enriched and validated by interviewing long-serving core developers.}, keywords = {apache, case studies, email, freebsd, grounded theory, kde, linux, linux kernel, open source software, peer review, subversion}, isbn = {978-1-4503-0445-0}, doi = {10.1145/1985793.1985867}, attachments = {https://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/Rigby2011ICSE.pdf}, author = {Peter C. Rigby and Storey, Margaret-Anne} } @conference {960, title = {A comparative exploration of FreeBSD bug lifetimes}, booktitle = {2010 7th IEEE Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR 2010)2010 7th IEEE Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR 2010)}, year = {2010}, pages = {106 - 109}, publisher = {IEEE}, organization = {IEEE}, address = {Cape Town, South Africa}, abstract = {In this paper, we explore the viability of mining the basic data provided in bug repositories to predict bug lifetimes. We follow the method of Lucas D. Panjer as described in his paper, Predicting Eclipse Bug Lifetimes. However, in place of Eclipse data, the FreeBSD bug repository is used. We compare the predictive accuracy of five different classification algorithms applied to the two data sets. In addition, we propose future work on whether there is a more informative way of classifying bugs than is considered by current bug tracking systems.}, keywords = {bug reports, bug tracking, classification, eclipse, msr challenge, prediction}, isbn = {978-1-4244-6802-7}, doi = {10.1109/MSR.2010.5463291}, attachments = {https://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/106ChallengeGargi.pdf}, author = {Bougie, Gargi and Treude, Christoph and Daniel M. German and Storey, Margaret-Anne} } @conference {Rigby:2008:OSS:1368088.1368162, title = {Open source software peer review practices: a case study of the apache server}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2008)}, series = {ICSE {\textquoteright}08}, year = {2008}, note = {http://faculty.salisbury.edu/~xswang/Research/Papers/SERelated/testing/p541-rigby.pdf}, pages = {541{\textendash}550}, publisher = {ACM}, organization = {ACM}, address = {New York, NY, USA}, abstract = {Peer review is seen as an important quality assurance mechanism in both industrial development and the open source software (OSS) community. The techniques for performing inspections have been well studied in industry; in OSS development, peer reviews are less well understood. We examine the two peer review techniques used by the successful, mature Apache server project: review-then-commit and commit-then-review. Using archival records of email discussion and version control repositories, we construct a series of metrics that produces measures similar to those used in traditional inspection experiments. Specifically, we measure the frequency of review, the level of participation in reviews, the size of the artifact under review, the calendar time to perform a review, and the number of reviews that find defects. We provide a comparison of the two Apache review techniques as well as a comparison of Apache review to inspection in an industrial project. We conclude that Apache reviews can be described as (1) early, frequent reviews (2) of small, independent, complete contributions (3) conducted asynchronously by a potentially large, but actually small, group of self-selected experts (4) leading to an efficient and effective peer review technique.}, keywords = {apache, cvs, email, inspection, mining software repositories (email), open source software, peer review, version control}, isbn = {978-1-60558-079-1}, doi = {10.1145/1368088.1368162}, url = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1368088.1368162}, attachments = {https://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/p541-rigby.pdf}, author = {Peter C. Rigby and Daniel M. German and Storey, Margaret-Anne} } @conference {German:2006:UEA:1137983.1138020, title = {Using evolutionary annotations from change logs to enhance program comprehension}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Mining software repositories}, series = {MSR {\textquoteright}06}, year = {2006}, pages = {159{\textendash}162}, publisher = {ACM}, organization = {ACM}, address = {New York, NY, USA}, abstract = {Evolutionary annotations are descriptions of how source code evolves over time. Typical source comments, given their static nature, are usually inadequate for describing how a program has evolved over time; instead, source code comments are typically a description of what a program currently does. We propose the use of evolutionary annotations as a way of describing the rationale behind changes applied to a given program (for example "These lines were added to ..."). Evolutionary annotations can assist a software developer in the understanding of how a given portion of source code works by showing him how the source has evolved into its current form.In this paper we describe a method to automatically create evolutionary annotations from change logs, defect tracking systems and mailing lists. We describe the design of a prototype for Eclipse that can filter and present these annotations alongside their corresponding source code and in workbench views. We use Apache as a test case to demonstrate the feasibility of this approach.}, keywords = {annotations, apache, bug tracking, change history, eclipse, evolutionary, log files, mailing lists, mining software repositories, software evolution, version control}, isbn = {1-59593-397-2}, doi = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1137983.1138020}, url = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1137983.1138020}, attachments = {https://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/159UsingEvolutionary.pdf}, author = {Daniel M. German and Peter C. Rigby and Storey, Margaret-Anne} } @conference {795, title = {The challenges of creating open source education software: the Gild experience}, booktitle = {OSS2005: Open Source Systems }, year = {2005}, pages = {338-340}, keywords = {COMMUNITY, eclipse, learning environment, novice programmers, open source, programming environment}, url = {http://pascal.case.unibz.it/handle/2038/1539}, author = {Daniel M. German and Rigby, Peter and Cubranic, Davor and Storey, Margaret-Anne and Thomson, Suzanne} }