@proceedings {1921,
	title = {Who Added that Permission to My App? An Analysis of Developer Permission Changes in Open Source Android Apps},
	year = {2017},
	note = {"Our first step was to collect open source Android repositories
from F-Droid ... We collected the git repositories for each
app, ... we recorded
all permissions, including those which were custom. 
At the time of our analysis, F-Droid contained information
for 2,372 open source Android apps. ... This process
identified 1,402 apps that had a AndroidManifest.xml file
with a history of commits... we created a tool
known as Open Source Android Repository Analyzer (oSARA)...we extracted version control
commit information ... extracts all committed AndroidManifest.xml
files from the version control history ...the committed
version of the AndroidManifest.xml file was also extracted
from the repositories, and all metadata was stored in a SQLite
database"},
	month = {05/2017},
	pages = {165-169},
	abstract = {Android applications rely on a permission-based
model to carry out core functionality. Appropriate permission
usage is imperative for ensuring device security and protecting
the user{\textquoteright}s desired privacy levels. But who is making the important
decisions of which permissions the app should request? Are they
experienced developers with the appropriate project knowledge to
make such important decisions, or are these crucial choices being
made by those with relatively minor amounts of contributions to
the project? When are these permission-related decisions being
made in the app{\textquoteright}s development life cycle? We examined 1,402
Android version control repositories containing over 331,318
commits including 18,751 AndroidManifest.xml versions to better
understand when, why, and who is adding permissions to apps.
We found that (I) developers with more experience are more
likely to make permission-based changes (II) permissions are
typically added earlier in apps{\textquoteright} commit lifetime, but their
removal is more sustained throughout the commit lifetime (III)
developers reverting permission-based changes are typically more
experienced than developers who initially made the change being
reverted.},
	keywords = {android, mobile},
	author = {Krutz, Daniel E. and Nuthan Munaiah and Anthony Peruma and Mohamed Wiem Mkaouer}
}
@inbook {1625,
	title = {Automation of Agricultural Irrigation System with Open Source},
	booktitle = {Open Source Software: Mobile Open Source Technologies},
	series = {IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology},
	volume = {427},
	year = {2014},
	pages = {232-233},
	publisher = {Springer Berlin Heidelberg},
	organization = {Springer Berlin Heidelberg},
	abstract = {

In this present job, we seek to develop a prototype of an automated agricultural irrigation system, monitored and controlled remotely. For that, we will use inexpensive tools, flexibility and support such as Arduino, XBee and Android. Arduino and XBee, will be responsible of the automating the system. Android will achieve the remote monitoring and control from anywhere in the world where there is cellular service and Internet. In this way we can give the farmer the comfort and security that he don{\textquoteright}t get with a manually controlled system.
},
	keywords = {ADK, android, Arduino, XBee},
	isbn = {978-3-642-55127-7},
	doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-55128-4_36},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55128-4_36},
	author = {Quezada, BladimirJaimeP{\'e}rez and Fern{\'a}ndez, Javier},
	editor = {Corral, Luis and Sillitti, Alberto and Succi, Giancarlo and Vlasenko, Jelena and Wasserman, AnthonyI.}
}
@article {bettenburg2013management,
	title = {Management of community contributions},
	journal = {Empirical Software Engineering},
	year = {2013},
	pages = {1{\textendash}38},
	publisher = {Springer},
	abstract = {In recent years, many companies have realized that collaboration with a thriving user or developer community is a major factor in creating innovative technology driven by market demand. As a result, businesses have sought ways to stimulate contributions from developers outside their corporate walls, and integrate external developers into their development process. To support software companies in this process, this paper presents an empirical study on the contribution management processes of two major, successful, open source software ecosystems. We contrast a for-profit (ANDROID) system having a hybrid contribution style, with a not-for-profit (LINUX kernel) system having an open contribution style. To guide our comparisons, we base our analysis on a conceptual model of contribution management that we derived from a total of seven major open-source software systems. A quantitative comparison based on data mined from the ANDROID code review system and the LINUX kernel code review mailing lists shows that both projects have significantly different contribution management styles, suited to their respective market goals, but with individual advantages and disadvantages that are important for practitioners. Contribution management is a real-world problem that has received very little attention from the research community so far. Both studied systems (LINUX and ANDROID) employ different strategies and techniques for managing contributions, and both approaches are valuable examples for practitioners. Each approach has specific advantages and disadvantages that need to be carefully evaluated by practitioners when adopting a contribution management process in practice.},
	keywords = {android, contribution, linux, management},
	url = {http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10664-013-9284-6},
	author = {Bettenburg, Nicolas and Hassan, Ahmed E. and Adams, Bram and Daniel M. German}
}
@proceedings {1498,
	title = {Who Does What during a Code Review? Datasets of OSS Peer Review Repositories },
	year = {2013},
	month = {05/2013},
	abstract = {We present four datasets that are focused on the general roles of OSS peer review members. With data mined from both an integrated peer review system and code source repositories, our rich datasets comprise of peer review data that was automatically recorded. Using the Android project as a case study, we describe our extraction methodology, the datasets and their application used for three separate studies. Our datasets are available online at http://sdlab.naist.jp/reviewmining/},
	keywords = {android, case study, code review, data set, peer review, roles, source code},
	author = {Kazuki Hamasaki and Raula Gaikovina Kula and Norihiro Yoshida and A. E. Camargo Cruz and Kenji Fujiwara and Hajimu Iida}
}
