@book {1591,
	title = {Code Review Analytics: WebKit as Case Study},
	series = {IFIP Advances in Information and Communication TechnologyOpen Source Software: Mobile Open Source Technologies. 10th IFIP WG 2.13 International Conference on Open Source Systems, OSS 2014, San Jos{\'e}, Costa Rica, May 6-9, 2014. Proceedings},
	volume = {427},
	year = {2014},
	pages = {1 - 10},
	publisher = {Springer Berlin Heidelberg},
	organization = {Springer Berlin Heidelberg},
	address = {Berlin, Heidelberg},
	abstract = {During the last years, most of the large free / open source software projects have included code review as an usual, or even mandatory practice for changes to their code. In many cases it is implemented as a process in which a developer proposing some change needs to ask for a review by another developer before it can enter the code base. Code reviews, therefore, become a critical process for the project, which could cause delays in contributions being accepted, and risk to become a bottleneck if not enough reviewers are available. In this paper we present a methodology designed to analyze the code review process, to determine its main characteristics and parameters, and to detect potential problems with it. We also present how we have applied this methodology to the WebKit project, learning about the main characteristics of how code review works in their case.},
	isbn = {978-3-642-55128-4},
	issn = {1868-422X},
	doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-55128-4_1},
	author = {Gonz{\'a}lez-Barahona, Jes{\'u}s M. and Izquierdo-Cort{\'a}zar, Daniel and Gregorio Robles and Mario Gallegos},
	editor = {Corral, Luis and Sillitti, Alberto and Succi, Giancarlo and Vlasenko, Jelena and Wasserman, Anthony I.}
}
@proceedings {1439,
	title = {A Comprehensive Study of Software Forks: Dates, Reasons and Outcomes},
	volume = {378},
	year = {2012},
	pages = {1-14},
	publisher = {IFIP AICT},
	abstract = {Summary. In general it is assumed that a software product evolves within the authoring company or group of developers that develop the project. However, in some cases different groups of developers make the software evolve in different directions, a situation which is commonly known as a fork. In the case of free software, although forking is a practice that is considered as a last resort, it is inherent to the four freedoms. This paper tries to shed some light on the practice of forking. Therefore, we have identified significant forks, several hundreds in total, and have studied them in depth. Among the issues that have been analyzed for each fork is the date when the forking occurred, the reason of the fork, and the outcome of the fork, i.e., if the original or the forking project are still developed. Our investigation shows, among other results, that forks occur in every software domain, that they have become more frequent in recent years, and that very few forks merge with the original project.},
	keywords = {forking, forks, free software, Legal, open source, social, software evolution, sustainability},
	attachments = {https://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/paper_0.pdf},
	author = {Gregorio Robles and Gonz{\'a}lez-Barahona, Jes{\'u}s M.}
}
