@conference {765,
	title = {The role of patch review in software evolution: an analysis of the mozilla firefox},
	booktitle = {The joint international and annual ERCIM workshops on Principles of software evolution (IWPSE) and software evolution (Evol) workshops},
	year = {2009},
	month = {08/2009},
	pages = {9-18},
	publisher = {ACM},
	organization = {ACM},
	type = {Paper in Conference Proceedings},
	address = {Amsterdam, The Netherlands},
	abstract = {Patch review is the basic mechanism for validating the design and implementation of patches and maintaining consistency in some commercial and Free/Libre/Open Source Software (FLOSS) projects. We examine the inner-workings of the development process of the successful and mature Mozilla foundation and highlight how different parties involved affect and steer the process. Although reviewers are the primary actors in the patch review process, success in the process can only be achieved if the community supports reviewers adequately. Peer developers play the supporting role by offering insight and ideas that help create more quality patches. Moreover, they reduce the huge patch backlog reviewers have to clear by identifying and eliminating immature patches.},
	keywords = {inspection, open source development},
	isbn = {978-1-60558-678-6},
	doi = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1595808.1595813},
	url = {http://ase.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/ase/uploads/Publications/iwpse31-nurolahzade.pdf},
	author = {Mehrdad Nurolahzade},
	editor = {Seyed Mehdi Nasehi and Shahedul Huq Khandkar and Shreya Rawal}
}
@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}
}
