@article {1920,
	title = {Process Aspects and Social Dynamics of Contemporary Code Review: Insights from Open Source Development and Industrial Practice at Microsoft},
	journal = {IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering},
	volume = {43},
	year = {2017},
	note = {" We sent the survey
to code review participants from 36 popular OSS projects
and received 287 responses"},
	month = {1/2017},
	pages = {56 - 75},
	abstract = {Many open source and commercial developers practice contemporary code review, a lightweight, informal, tool-based code
review process. To better understand this process and its benefits, we gathered information about code review practices via surveys of
open source software developers and developers from Microsoft. The results of our analysis suggest that developers spend
approximately 10-15 percent of their time in code reviews, with the amount of effort increasing with experience. Developers consider
code review important, stating that in addition to finding defects, code reviews offer other benefits, including knowledge sharing,
community building, and maintaining code quality. The quality of the code submitted for review helps reviewers form impressions about
their teammates, which can influence future collaborations. We found a large amount of similarity between the Microsoft and OSS
respondents. One interesting difference is that while OSS respondents view code review as an important method of impression
formation, Microsoft respondents found knowledge dissemination to be more important. Finally, we found little difference between
distributed and co-located Microsoft teams. Our findings identify the following key areas that warrant focused research: 1) exploring the
non-technical benefits of code reviews, 2) helping developers in articulating review comments, and 3) assisting reviewers{\textquoteright} program
comprehension during code reviews.},
	keywords = {code review, commercial projects, peer impressions, Survey},
	issn = {1939-3520},
	doi = {10.1109/TSE.2016.2576451},
	url = {https://amiangshu.com/papers/CodeReview-TSE-2016.pdf},
	attachments = {https://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/CodeReview-TSE-2016.pdf},
	author = {Bosu, Amiangshu and Carver, Jeffrey C. and Christian Bird and Orbeck, Jonathan and Chockley, Christopher}
}
@conference {1306,
	title = {Java generics adoption},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 8th working conference on Mining software repositories - MSR {\textquoteright}11},
	year = {2011},
	note = {"we automatically analyzed 20 open source software projects. We analyzed the top {\textquotedblleft}most used{\textquotedblright} projects according to ohloh.net, including only projects with significant amounts of Java code"

"The 20 selected projects were Ant, Azureus, CheckStyle, Commons Collections, Free- Mind, FindBugs, Jetty, JEdit, JDT, JUnit, Eclipse-cs, Hibernate, Log4j, Lucene, Maven, the Spring Frame- work, Squirrel-SQL, Subclipse, Weka, and Xerces."

"In mining the full version histories of these 20 projects, we analyzed the full content of each version of each Java source file, a total of 548,982,841 lines."},
	month = {05/2011},
	pages = {3-12},
	publisher = {ACM Press},
	organization = {ACM Press},
	address = {New York, New York, USA},
	abstract = {Support for generic programming was added to the Java language in 2004, representing perhaps the most significant change to one of the most widely used programming languages today. Researchers and language designers anticipated this addition would relieve many long-standing problems plaguing developers, but surprisingly, no one has yet measured whether generics actually provide such relief. In this paper, we report on the first empirical investigation into how Java generics have been integrated into open source software by automatically mining the history of 20 popular open source Java programs, traversing more than 500 million lines of code in the process. We evaluate five hypotheses, each based on assertions made by prior researchers, about how Java developers use generics. For example, our results suggest that generics do not significantly reduce the number of type casts and that generics are usually adopted by a single champion in a project, rather than all committers.},
	keywords = {commits, generics, java, source code, version history},
	isbn = {9781450305747},
	doi = {10.1145/1985441.1985446},
	author = {Christian Bird and Murphy-Hill, Emerson and Parnin, Chris}
}
@conference {954,
	title = {Clones: What is that smell?},
	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 = {72 - 81},
	publisher = {IEEE},
	organization = {IEEE},
	address = {Cape Town, South Africa},
	abstract = {Clones are generally considered bad programming practice in software engineering folklore. They are identified as a bad smell and a major contributor to project maintenance difficulties. Clones inherently cause code bloat, thus increasing project size and maintenance costs. In this work, we try to validate the conventional wisdom empirically to see whether cloning makes code more defect prone. This paper analyses relationship between cloning and defect proneness. We find that, first, the great majority of bugs are not significantly associated with clones. Second, we find that clones may be less defect prone than non-cloned code. Finally, we find little evidence that clones with more copies are actually more error prone. Our findings do not support the claim that clones are really a "bad smell". Perhaps we can clone, and breathe easy, at the same time.},
	keywords = {apache, bug fix revisions, bugs, clone, evolution, gimp, nautilus, scm, source code},
	isbn = {978-1-4244-6802-7},
	doi = {10.1109/MSR.2010.5463343},
	attachments = {https://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/72rahman2010cws.pdf},
	author = {Rahman, Foyzur and Christian Bird and Devanbu, Premkumar}
}
@conference {1011,
	title = {Detecting Patch Submission and Acceptance in OSS Projects},
	booktitle = {Fourth International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories (MSR{\textquoteright}07:ICSE Workshops 2007)},
	year = {2007},
	pages = {26 - 26},
	publisher = {IEEE},
	organization = {IEEE},
	address = {Minneapolis, MN, USA},
	abstract = {The success of open source software (OSS) is completely dependent on the work of volunteers who contribute their time and talents. The submission of patches is the major way that participants outside of the core group of developers make contributions. We argue that the process of patch submission and acceptance into the codebase is an important piece of the open source puzzle and that the use of patch-related data can be helpful in understanding how OSS projects work. We present our methods in identifying the submission and acceptance of patches and give results and evaluation in applying these methods to the Apache webserver, Python interpreter, Postgres SQL database, and (with limitations) MySQL database projects. In addition, we present valuable ways in which this data has been and can be used.},
	keywords = {apache, contributions, mysql, patches, postgresql, python, scm, source code},
	isbn = {0-7695-2950-X},
	doi = {10.1109/MSR.2007.6},
	attachments = {https://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/28300026.pdf},
	author = {Christian Bird and Gourley, Alex and Devanbu, Prem}
}
@conference {995,
	title = {Open Borders? Immigration in Open Source Projects},
	booktitle = {Fourth International Workshop on Mining Software RepositoriesFourth International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories (MSR{\textquoteright}07:ICSE Workshops 2007)},
	year = {2007},
	pages = {6 - 6},
	publisher = {IEEE},
	organization = {IEEE},
	address = {Minneapolis, MN, USA},
	abstract = {Open source software is built by teams of volunteers. Each project has a core team of developers, who have the authority to commit changes to the repository; this team is the elite, committed foundation of the project, selected through a meritocratic process from a larger number of people who participate on the mailing list. Most projects carefully regulate admission of outsiders to full developer privileges; some projects even have formal descriptions of this process. Understanding the factors that influence the "who, how and when" of this process is critical, both for the sustainability of FLOSS projects, and for outside stakeholders who want to gain entry and succeed. In this paper we mount a quantitative case study of the process by which people join FLOSS projects, using data mined from the Apache web server, Postgres, and Python. We develop a theory of open source project joining, and evaluate this theory based on our data.},
	keywords = {apache, core, joining, postgresql, python, team},
	isbn = {0-7695-2950-X},
	doi = {10.1109/MSR.2007.23},
	attachments = {https://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/28300006.pdf},
	author = {Christian Bird and Gourley, Alex and Devanbu, Prem and Swaminathan, Anand and Hsu, Greta}
}
@conference {Bird:2006:MES:1137983.1138016,
	title = {Mining email social networks},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Mining software repositories},
	series = {MSR {\textquoteright}06},
	year = {2006},
	pages = {137{\textendash}143},
	publisher = {ACM},
	organization = {ACM},
	address = {New York, NY, USA},
	abstract = {Communication \& Co-ordination activities are central to large software projects, but are difficult to observe and study in traditional (closed-source, commercial) settings because of the prevalence of informal, direct communication modes. OSS projects, on the other hand, use the internet as the communication medium,and typically conduct discussions in an open, public manner. As a result, the email archives of OSS projects provide a useful trace of the communication and co-ordination activities of the participants. However, there are various challenges that must be addressed before this data can be effectively mined. Once this is done, we can construct social networks of email correspondents, and begin to address some interesting questions. These include questions relating to participation in the email; the social status of different types of OSS participants; the relationship of email activity and commit activity (in the CVS repositories) and the relationship of social status with commit activity. In this paper, we begin with a discussion of our infrastructure (including a novel use of Scientific Workflow software) and then discuss our approach to mining the email archives; and finally we present some preliminary results from our data analysis.},
	keywords = {communication, contributions, developers, email, email archives, mailing lists, open source, social networks},
	isbn = {1-59593-397-2},
	doi = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1137983.1138016},
	url = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1137983.1138016},
	attachments = {https://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/137MiningEmail.pdf},
	author = {Christian Bird and Gourley, Alex and Devanbu, Prem and Gertz, Michael and Swaminathan, Anand}
}
