mgaughan/adaptation-slr
1
0
Fork 0
Code

updating with 4/34 papers first pass

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
mgaughan 2025-07-09 23:32:12 -04:00
parent 3a4c92642c
commit 5c664d4736
1 changed files with 4 additions and 4 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

8
070725_papers_master.csv
View File

@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
Key,Item Type,Publication Year,Author,Title,DOI,Change characteristics (blue),Actors (purple),Environmental characteristics (green),Methods details (orange),Misc. (red)
LB5MEY9S,journalArticle,2017,"Norskov, Sladjana; Kesting, Peter; Ulhoi, John Parm",Deliberate change without hierarchical influence? The case of collaborative OSS communities,10.1108/IJOA-08-2016-1050,,,,,
KUWLMFWM,journalArticle,2017,"Santos, Carlos Denner D60os",Changes in free and open source software licenses: managerial interventions and variations on project attractiveness,10.1186/s13174-017-0062-3,,,,,
SJEI288C,conferencePaper,2024,"Franke, Lucas; Liang, Huayu; Farzanehpour, Sahar; Brantly, Aaron; Davis, James C.; Brown, Chris",An Exploratory Mixed-methods Study on General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Compliance in Open-Source Software,10.1145/3674805.3686692,,,,,
SJEI288C,conferencePaper,2024,"Franke, Lucas; Liang, Huayu; Farzanehpour, Sahar; Brantly, Aaron; Davis, James C.; Brown, Chris",An Exploratory Mixed-methods Study on General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Compliance in Open-Source Software,10.1145/3674805.3686692,technical and organizational: broad compliance with GDPR; increased development work and attention devoted to compliance with GDPR features and PRs -- increases to the technical management of data --- organizational: slowed down development timelines immensely --- organization: GDPR compliance requires and overhaul of --- consultation with legal team is a change in and of itself ; one that decreased productivity; technical because the technical aspects of the code were the things regulated by GDPR,OSS project developers --- some of whom had submitted GDPR compliance Prs ,"geopolitical legal regulation --- data privacy and rights regulation --- EU --- from a technical level, this is a non-functional requirement ---internal evaluation of change success within environment: consultation with legal counsel --- self-assessment --- “most of the resources on the internet are wrong”","Mixed-methods: pilot interview study with three developers; survey with 56 developers; mined Prs from GitHub, some sampling for survey done from activity data mined from GitHub ; grounded thematic coding methods for analysis of free responses/qualitative themes","developers not happy about compliance --- frustration of internal productivity in order to comply with the standard--- unhappiness also with the standard itself, not just what the compliance does to the project"
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,,,,,
@ -20,16 +20,16 @@ FJSA37EW,journalArticle,2021,"Bogart, Chris; Kästner, Christian; Herbsleb, Jame
QEKG8ISF,journalArticle,2016,"Hilton, Michael; Tunnell, Timothy; Huang, Kai; Marinov, Darko; Dig, Danny","ASE - Usage, costs, and benefits of continuous integration in open-source projects",10.1145/2970276.2970358,,,,,
ZGK4HR76,journalArticle,2015,"Vendome, Christopher; Linares-Vasquez, Mario; Bavota, Gabriele; Di Penta, Massimiliano; German, Daniel M.; Poshyvanyk, Denys",ICSME - When and why developers adopt and change software licenses,10.1109/icsm.2015.7332449,,,,,
PSZSSAS3,journalArticle,2017,"Ding, Hui; Ma, Wanwangying; Chen, Lin; Zhou, Yuming; Xu, Baowen",APSEC - An Empirical Study on Downstream Workarounds for Cross-Project Bugs,10.1109/apsec.2017.38,,,,,
V3F8FYG5,journalArticle,2018,"Meloca, Rômulo; Pinto, Gustavo; Baiser, Leonardo; Mattos, Marco; Polato, Ivanilton; Wiese, Igor; German, Daniel M.","MSR - Understanding the usage, impact, and adoption of non-OSI approved licenses",10.1145/3196398.3196427,,,,,
V3F8FYG5,journalArticle,2018,"Meloca, Rômulo; Pinto, Gustavo; Baiser, Leonardo; Mattos, Marco; Polato, Ivanilton; Wiese, Igor; German, Daniel M.","Understanding the usage, impact, and adoption of non-OSI approved licenses",10.1145/3196398.3196427,Organizational -- adoption of non OSI approved licenses or change to OSI-approved license --- the majority of the changes in either direction were from the adoption or deletion of a license (which happened to be OSI compliant) --- RQ3 provides naivete or lack of care for reasoning for moves into non-approved licenses,OSS package publishers --- some of whom have published packages with non-OSI approved licenses ,"governing body --- OSI is an open source regulator, vets the software license to make sure that it’s either open source or not --Also looking at compliance within three well-known open source libraries: NPM, RubyGems and CRAN; these enviroments are kinda nested within the focal environment, compliance in terms of sync with dependencies --- check of ‘success’ or anything: majority of the time, surveyed developers are not checking whether the different licenses they select are conforming, or adhering to anything",Mixed-methods: mining packages from the three different package manager environments -- pulled down a bunch of package data from the different ecosystems and looked through their license change over specified versions: a survey with the publishers of the package. sampled from NPM. open responses were qualitatively coded by pairs of researchers ,not happy with the way that the different segments of the project are conflated with each other --- what use is the response of developers who use specific non-compliant licenses when the majority of non-compliance evolution is deletion or lack of license? --- different sets of populations between different methods sections of the research --- “developers might not fully understand the effect of the adaptive action that they’re taking” --- contributors ‘dont care; about the licenses they use
6AQY86BW,journalArticle,2022,"Businge, John; Openja, Moses; Nadi, Sarah; Berger, Thorsten",Reuse and maintenance practices among divergent forks in three software ecosystems,10.1007/s10664-021-10078-2,,,,,
YJREPLGY,journalArticle,2023,"Venturini, Daniel; Cogo, Filipe Roseiro; Polato, Ivanilton; Gerosa, Marco A.; Wiese, Igor Scaliante",I Depended on You and You Broke Me: An Empirical Study of Manifesting Breaking Changes in Client Packages,10.1145/3576037,,,,,
QIVH9LJG,journalArticle,2017,"Abdalkareem, Rabe; Nourry, Olivier; Wehaibi, ; Mujahid, Suhaib; Shihab, Emad",ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE - Why do developers use trivial packages? an empirical case study on npm,10.1145/3106237.3106267,,,,,
QIVH9LJG,journalArticle,2017,"Abdalkareem, Rabe; Nourry, Olivier; Wehaibi, ; Mujahid, Suhaib; Shihab, Emad",Why do developers use trivial packages? an empirical case study on npm,10.1145/3106237.3106267,technical: code reuse: trivial package reuse: rationale – trivial packages provide well-implemented and tested code from the packaging ecosystem: enables adherence to the quality testing of the broader ecosystem,application developers; professional JS developers; many long-tenured,package management systems: npm – node.js; change adheres project to well-tested and implemented environment; there are a lot of trivial packages; no project evaluation of change ‘success’ wrt environment,mixed methods: pilot survey – data mining – follow up survey – data mining to validate survey responses: sampling from prior methods step: skews to university; survey free-response answers were analyzed with qualitative coding – grounded theory methods,internal motivations for productiivty: many also stated that reuse was bad: developers aware that the change may represent existential risk for themselves; in adapting may also introduce more threats
TFDYF5UM,journalArticle,2011,"Capiluppi, Andrea; Stol, Klaas-Jan; Boldyreff, Cornelia",Software Reuse in Open Source: A Case Study,10.4018/jossp.2011070102,,,,,
XDY5INZ6,conferencePaper,2018,"Lotter, Adriaan; Licorish, Sherlock A.; Savarimuthu, Bastin Tony Roy; Meldrum, Sarah",Code Reuse in Stack Overflow and Popular Open Source Java Projects,10.1109/ASWEC.2018.00027,,,,,
MBVCDT66,journalArticle,2023,"He, Runzhi; He, Hao; Zhang, Yuxia; Zhou, Minghui",Automating Dependency Updates in Practice: An Exploratory Study on GitHub Dependabot,10.1109/TSE.2023.3278129,,,,,
DGV2UJNM,conferencePaper,2020,"Zhou, Shurui; Vasilescu, Bogdan; Kästner, Christian",How has forking changed in the last 20 years? a study of hard forks on GitHub,10.1145/3377811.3380412,,,,,
QLSEMWTQ,journalArticle,2017,"Vendome, Christopher; Bavota, Gabriele; Penta, Massimiliano Di; Linares-Vásquez, Mario; German, Daniel; Poshyvanyk, Denys",License usage and changes: a large-scale study on gitHub,10.1007/s10664-016-9438-4,,,,,
5E2EWRQN,journalArticle,2020,"Abdalkareem, Rabe; Oda, Vinicius; Mujahid, Suhaib; Shihab, Emad",On the impact of using trivial packages: an empirical case study on npm and PyPI,10.1007/s10664-019-09792-9,technical: code reuse: trivial package reuse: rationale – trivial packages provide well-implemented and tested code from the packaging ecosystem: enables adherence to the quality testing of the broader ecosystem,application developers: long-tenured JS and Python coders: largely professional but some independents,package managemeny systems: npm and PyPI: change adheres project to well-tested and implemented environment: ,mixed methods: pilot survey – data mining – follow up survey – data mining to validate survey responses: sampling from prior methods step: skews to university ,internal motivations for productiivty: many also stated that reuse was bad: paper spends a lot of time defining trivial packages
5E2EWRQN,journalArticle,2020,"Abdalkareem, Rabe; Oda, Vinicius; Mujahid, Suhaib; Shihab, Emad",On the impact of using trivial packages: an empirical case study on npm and PyPI,10.1007/s10664-019-09792-9,technical: code reuse: trivial package reuse: rationale – trivial packages provide well-implemented and tested code from the packaging ecosystem: enables adherence to the quality testing of the broader ecosystem,application developers: long-tenured JS and Python coders: largely professional but some independents,package managemeny systems: npm and PyPI: change adheres project to well-tested and implemented environment: no project evaluation of change ‘success’ wrt environment ,mixed methods: pilot survey – data mining – follow up survey – data mining to validate survey responses: sampling from prior methods step: skews to university ,internal motivations for productiivty: many also stated that reuse was bad: paper spends a lot of time defining trivial packages
P3MTJWXP,conferencePaper,2022,"Zhang, Xunhui; Wang, Tao; Yu, Yue; Zeng, Qiubing; Li, Zhixing; Wang, Huaimin","Who, What, Why and How? Towards the Monetary Incentive in Crowd Collaboration: A Case Study of Github’s Sponsor Mechanism",10.1145/3491102.3501822,,,,,
DW9Q2W6V,conferencePaper,2022,"Businge, John; Zerouali, Ahmed; Decan, Alexandre; Mens, Tom; Demeyer, Serge; De Roover, Coen",Variant Forks - Motivations and Impediments,10.1109/SANER53432.2022.00105,,,,,
3Y9YKK5M,conferencePaper,2011,"Heinemann, Lars; Deissenboeck, Florian; Gleirscher, Mario; Hummel, Benjamin; Irlbeck, Maximilian",On the Extent and Nature of Software Reuse in Open Source Java Projects,,,,,,

1 Key Item Type Publication Year Author Title DOI Change characteristics (blue) Actors (purple) Environmental characteristics (green) Methods details (orange) Misc. (red)
2 LB5MEY9S journalArticle 2017 Norskov, Sladjana; Kesting, Peter; Ulhoi, John Parm Deliberate change without hierarchical influence? The case of collaborative OSS communities 10.1108/IJOA-08-2016-1050
3 KUWLMFWM journalArticle 2017 Santos, Carlos Denner D60os Changes in free and open source software licenses: managerial interventions and variations on project attractiveness 10.1186/s13174-017-0062-3
4 SJEI288C conferencePaper 2024 Franke, Lucas; Liang, Huayu; Farzanehpour, Sahar; Brantly, Aaron; Davis, James C.; Brown, Chris An Exploratory Mixed-methods Study on General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Compliance in Open-Source Software 10.1145/3674805.3686692 technical and organizational: broad compliance with GDPR; increased development work and attention devoted to compliance with GDPR features and PRs -- increases to the technical management of data --- organizational: slowed down development timelines immensely --- organization: GDPR compliance requires and overhaul of --- consultation with legal team is a change in and of itself ; one that decreased productivity; technical because the technical aspects of the code were the things regulated by GDPR OSS project developers --- some of whom had submitted GDPR compliance Prs geopolitical legal regulation --- data privacy and rights regulation --- EU --- from a technical level, this is a non-functional requirement ---internal evaluation of change success within environment: consultation with legal counsel --- self-assessment --- “most of the resources on the internet are wrong” Mixed-methods: pilot interview study with three developers; survey with 56 developers; mined Prs from GitHub, some sampling for survey done from activity data mined from GitHub ; grounded thematic coding methods for analysis of free responses/qualitative themes developers not happy about compliance --- frustration of internal productivity in order to comply with the standard--- unhappiness also with the standard itself, not just what the compliance does to the project
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
20 QEKG8ISF journalArticle 2016 Hilton, Michael; Tunnell, Timothy; Huang, Kai; Marinov, Darko; Dig, Danny ASE - Usage, costs, and benefits of continuous integration in open-source projects 10.1145/2970276.2970358
21 ZGK4HR76 journalArticle 2015 Vendome, Christopher; Linares-Vasquez, Mario; Bavota, Gabriele; Di Penta, Massimiliano; German, Daniel M.; Poshyvanyk, Denys ICSME - When and why developers adopt and change software licenses 10.1109/icsm.2015.7332449
22 PSZSSAS3 journalArticle 2017 Ding, Hui; Ma, Wanwangying; Chen, Lin; Zhou, Yuming; Xu, Baowen APSEC - An Empirical Study on Downstream Workarounds for Cross-Project Bugs 10.1109/apsec.2017.38
23 V3F8FYG5 journalArticle 2018 Meloca, Rômulo; Pinto, Gustavo; Baiser, Leonardo; Mattos, Marco; Polato, Ivanilton; Wiese, Igor; German, Daniel M. MSR - Understanding the usage, impact, and adoption of non-OSI approved licenses Understanding the usage, impact, and adoption of non-OSI approved licenses 10.1145/3196398.3196427 Organizational -- adoption of non OSI approved licenses or change to OSI-approved license --- the majority of the changes in either direction were from the adoption or deletion of a license (which happened to be OSI compliant) --- RQ3 provides naivete or lack of care for reasoning for moves into non-approved licenses OSS package publishers --- some of whom have published packages with non-OSI approved licenses governing body --- OSI is an open source regulator, vets the software license to make sure that it’s either open source or not --Also looking at compliance within three well-known open source libraries: NPM, RubyGems and CRAN; these enviroments are kinda nested within the focal environment, compliance in terms of sync with dependencies --- check of ‘success’ or anything: majority of the time, surveyed developers are not checking whether the different licenses they select are conforming, or adhering to anything Mixed-methods: mining packages from the three different package manager environments -- pulled down a bunch of package data from the different ecosystems and looked through their license change over specified versions: a survey with the publishers of the package. sampled from NPM. open responses were qualitatively coded by pairs of researchers not happy with the way that the different segments of the project are conflated with each other --- what use is the response of developers who use specific non-compliant licenses when the majority of non-compliance evolution is deletion or lack of license? --- different sets of populations between different methods sections of the research --- “developers might not fully understand the effect of the adaptive action that they’re taking” --- contributors ‘dont care; about the licenses they use
24 6AQY86BW journalArticle 2022 Businge, John; Openja, Moses; Nadi, Sarah; Berger, Thorsten Reuse and maintenance practices among divergent forks in three software ecosystems 10.1007/s10664-021-10078-2
25 YJREPLGY journalArticle 2023 Venturini, Daniel; Cogo, Filipe Roseiro; Polato, Ivanilton; Gerosa, Marco A.; Wiese, Igor Scaliante I Depended on You and You Broke Me: An Empirical Study of Manifesting Breaking Changes in Client Packages 10.1145/3576037
26 QIVH9LJG journalArticle 2017 Abdalkareem, Rabe; Nourry, Olivier; Wehaibi, ; Mujahid, Suhaib; Shihab, Emad ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE - Why do developers use trivial packages? an empirical case study on npm Why do developers use trivial packages? an empirical case study on npm 10.1145/3106237.3106267 technical: code reuse: trivial package reuse: rationale – trivial packages provide well-implemented and tested code from the packaging ecosystem: enables adherence to the quality testing of the broader ecosystem application developers; professional JS developers; many long-tenured package management systems: npm – node.js; change adheres project to well-tested and implemented environment; there are a lot of trivial packages; no project evaluation of change ‘success’ wrt environment mixed methods: pilot survey – data mining – follow up survey – data mining to validate survey responses: sampling from prior methods step: skews to university; survey free-response answers were analyzed with qualitative coding – grounded theory methods internal motivations for productiivty: many also stated that reuse was bad: developers aware that the change may represent existential risk for themselves; in adapting may also introduce more threats
27 TFDYF5UM journalArticle 2011 Capiluppi, Andrea; Stol, Klaas-Jan; Boldyreff, Cornelia Software Reuse in Open Source: A Case Study 10.4018/jossp.2011070102
28 XDY5INZ6 conferencePaper 2018 Lotter, Adriaan; Licorish, Sherlock A.; Savarimuthu, Bastin Tony Roy; Meldrum, Sarah Code Reuse in Stack Overflow and Popular Open Source Java Projects 10.1109/ASWEC.2018.00027
29 MBVCDT66 journalArticle 2023 He, Runzhi; He, Hao; Zhang, Yuxia; Zhou, Minghui Automating Dependency Updates in Practice: An Exploratory Study on GitHub Dependabot 10.1109/TSE.2023.3278129
30 DGV2UJNM conferencePaper 2020 Zhou, Shurui; Vasilescu, Bogdan; Kästner, Christian How has forking changed in the last 20 years? a study of hard forks on GitHub 10.1145/3377811.3380412
31 QLSEMWTQ journalArticle 2017 Vendome, Christopher; Bavota, Gabriele; Penta, Massimiliano Di; Linares-Vásquez, Mario; German, Daniel; Poshyvanyk, Denys License usage and changes: a large-scale study on gitHub 10.1007/s10664-016-9438-4
32 5E2EWRQN journalArticle 2020 Abdalkareem, Rabe; Oda, Vinicius; Mujahid, Suhaib; Shihab, Emad On the impact of using trivial packages: an empirical case study on npm and PyPI 10.1007/s10664-019-09792-9 technical: code reuse: trivial package reuse: rationale – trivial packages provide well-implemented and tested code from the packaging ecosystem: enables adherence to the quality testing of the broader ecosystem application developers: long-tenured JS and Python coders: largely professional but some independents package managemeny systems: npm and PyPI: change adheres project to well-tested and implemented environment: package managemeny systems: npm and PyPI: change adheres project to well-tested and implemented environment: no project evaluation of change ‘success’ wrt environment mixed methods: pilot survey – data mining – follow up survey – data mining to validate survey responses: sampling from prior methods step: skews to university internal motivations for productiivty: many also stated that reuse was bad: paper spends a lot of time defining trivial packages
33 P3MTJWXP conferencePaper 2022 Zhang, Xunhui; Wang, Tao; Yu, Yue; Zeng, Qiubing; Li, Zhixing; Wang, Huaimin Who, What, Why and How? Towards the Monetary Incentive in Crowd Collaboration: A Case Study of Github’s Sponsor Mechanism 10.1145/3491102.3501822
34 DW9Q2W6V conferencePaper 2022 Businge, John; Zerouali, Ahmed; Decan, Alexandre; Mens, Tom; Demeyer, Serge; De Roover, Coen Variant Forks - Motivations and Impediments 10.1109/SANER53432.2022.00105
35 3Y9YKK5M conferencePaper 2011 Heinemann, Lars; Deissenboeck, Florian; Gleirscher, Mario; Hummel, Benjamin; Irlbeck, Maximilian On the Extent and Nature of Software Reuse in Open Source Java Projects