1
0

6/34 papers

This commit is contained in:
mgaughan 2025-07-10 15:05:01 -04:00
parent d24df6c6a4
commit 08e88c0680

View File

@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ SJEI288C,conferencePaper,2024,"Franke, Lucas; Liang, Huayu; Farzanehpour, Sahar;
U7U4YLVB,journalArticle,2023,"Hsieh, Jane; Kim, Joselyn; Dabbish, Laura; Zhu, Haiyi","""Nip it in the Bud"": Moderation Strategies in Open Source Software Projects and the Role of Bots",10.1145/3610092,,,,,
M6PP5MPQ,conferencePaper,2011,"Jensen, Chris; Scacchi, Walt",License Update and Migration Processes in Open Source Software Projects,https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24418-6_12,,,,,
ENQ5AACF,journalArticle,2022,"Barcomb, Ann; Klaas-Jan Stol; Fitzgerald, Brian; Riehle, Dirk",Managing Episodic Volunteers in Free/Libre/Open Source Software Communities,10.1109/TSE.2020.2985093,,,,,
RN5Y3TN5,conferencePaper,2020,"Wessel, Mairieli; Serebrenik, Alexander; Wiese, Igor; Steinmacher, Igor; Gerosa, Marco A.",What to Expect from Code Review Bots on GitHub? A Survey with OSS Maintainers,10.1145/3422392.3422459,,,,,
RN5Y3TN5,conferencePaper,2020,"Wessel, Mairieli; Serebrenik, Alexander; Wiese, Igor; Steinmacher, Igor; Gerosa, Marco A.",What to Expect from Code Review Bots on GitHub? A Survey with OSS Maintainers,10.1145/3422392.3422459,organizational/procedural - adoption of code review bot; rationale: this code review bot will enhance feedback to developers contributing code; reducing maintainers effort when evaluating different parts of the code,OSS maintainers of projects that had adopted code review bots ,external/peripheral contributions from the fork of the project --- those waiting for code review --- self-assessment: internal metrics of amorphous normative goals such as reducing time to close on Prs; maintainers hoped to automate things as the number of contributions increased,qualitative survey: 27 maintainers re: the adoption of code review bots within the project. maintainers for projects who had adopted at least one code review bot. using the GHTorrent data set and who had contributed on either side of bot adoption --- card sorting thematic analysis of the survey responses --- discussion and consensus regarding the themes,a lot of internal rationalization when addressing different factors of being more productive or lessening small labor within the project--- added noise and downside results from the adoption of the bots
HS8AQN5V,journalArticle,2010,"Sojer, Manuel; Henkel, Joachim","Code Reuse in Open Source Software Development: Quantitative Evidence, Drivers, and Impediments",10.17705/1jais.00248,,,,,
GGZV58MQ,journalArticle,2021,"Klug, Daniel; Bogart, Christopher; Herbsleb, James D.","""They Can Only Ever Guide"": How an Open Source Software Community Uses Roadmaps to Coordinate Effort",10.1145/3449232,,,,,
JL6YZE5S,journalArticle,2023,"Hu, Jin; Hu, Daning; Yang, Xuan; Chau, Michael",The impacts of lockdown on open source software contributions during the COVID-19 pandemic,10.1016/j.respol.2023.104885,,,,,

1 Key Item Type Publication Year Author Title DOI Change characteristics (blue) Actors (purple) Environmental characteristics (green) Methods details (orange) Misc. (red)
5 U7U4YLVB journalArticle 2023 Hsieh, Jane; Kim, Joselyn; Dabbish, Laura; Zhu, Haiyi "Nip it in the Bud": Moderation Strategies in Open Source Software Projects and the Role of Bots 10.1145/3610092
6 M6PP5MPQ conferencePaper 2011 Jensen, Chris; Scacchi, Walt License Update and Migration Processes in Open Source Software Projects https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24418-6_12
7 ENQ5AACF journalArticle 2022 Barcomb, Ann; Klaas-Jan Stol; Fitzgerald, Brian; Riehle, Dirk Managing Episodic Volunteers in Free/Libre/Open Source Software Communities 10.1109/TSE.2020.2985093
8 RN5Y3TN5 conferencePaper 2020 Wessel, Mairieli; Serebrenik, Alexander; Wiese, Igor; Steinmacher, Igor; Gerosa, Marco A. What to Expect from Code Review Bots on GitHub? A Survey with OSS Maintainers 10.1145/3422392.3422459 organizational/procedural - adoption of code review bot; rationale: this code review bot will enhance feedback to developers contributing code; reducing maintainers effort when evaluating different parts of the code OSS maintainers of projects that had adopted code review bots external/peripheral contributions from the fork of the project --- those waiting for code review --- self-assessment: internal metrics of amorphous normative goals such as reducing time to close on Prs; maintainers hoped to automate things as the number of contributions increased qualitative survey: 27 maintainers re: the adoption of code review bots within the project. maintainers for projects who had adopted at least one code review bot. using the GHTorrent data set and who had contributed on either side of bot adoption --- card sorting thematic analysis of the survey responses --- discussion and consensus regarding the themes a lot of internal rationalization when addressing different factors of being more ‘productive’ or lessening small labor within the project--- added noise and downside results from the adoption of the bots
9 HS8AQN5V journalArticle 2010 Sojer, Manuel; Henkel, Joachim Code Reuse in Open Source Software Development: Quantitative Evidence, Drivers, and Impediments 10.17705/1jais.00248
10 GGZV58MQ journalArticle 2021 Klug, Daniel; Bogart, Christopher; Herbsleb, James D. "They Can Only Ever Guide": How an Open Source Software Community Uses Roadmaps to Coordinate Effort 10.1145/3449232
11 JL6YZE5S journalArticle 2023 Hu, Jin; Hu, Daning; Yang, Xuan; Chau, Michael The impacts of lockdown on open source software contributions during the COVID-19 pandemic 10.1016/j.respol.2023.104885