mgaughan/adaptation-slr
1
0
Fork 0
Code

7/34 papers

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
mgaughan 2025-07-10 17:22:49 -04:00
parent 08e88c0680
commit a7cc04b68a
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
070725_papers_master.csv
View File

@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ YJREPLGY,journalArticle,2023,"Venturini, Daniel; Cogo, Filipe Roseiro; Polato, I
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,,,,,
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,"organizational/procedural -- adoption of dependabot--- stated rationale: managing project dependencies --- specifically, keeping project dependencies up to date ---","OSS developers for projects that have adopted dependabot --- specifically, developers who are likely to be familiar with dependabot and its workings","GitHub ---- specifically the projects on GitHub but often, the platform itself structures the environment that projects operate in --- also dependency networks, the reasoning why dependabot is used is for projects to align better with the dependencies that they’re reliant on","mixed-methods, EDA and a developer survey --- from a sample of 1823 projects, mining the PRs made by Dependabot with a survey of the projects’ developers (n131)--- sampled for the survey from the projects that were identified in the mining scenario -- a lot of researcher selection in finding maintainers who are likely to be familiar with it","a lot of analysis on whether or not adopting dependabot works, like whether the thing that people are doing to adapt is… actually working… even though dependabot is not that useful for automatic updates, many developers believe that it is useful for notifying updates"
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: 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

1 Key Item Type Publication Year Author Title DOI Change characteristics (blue) Actors (purple) Environmental characteristics (green) Methods details (orange) Misc. (red)
26 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
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 organizational/procedural -- adoption of dependabot--- stated rationale: managing project dependencies --- specifically, keeping project dependencies up to date --- OSS developers for projects that have adopted dependabot --- specifically, developers who are likely to be familiar with dependabot and its workings GitHub ---- specifically the projects on GitHub but often, the platform itself structures the environment that projects operate in --- also dependency networks, the reasoning why dependabot is used is for projects to align better with the dependencies that they’re reliant on mixed-methods, EDA and a developer survey --- from a sample of 1823 projects, mining the PRs made by Dependabot with a survey of the projects’ developers (n131)--- sampled for the survey from the projects that were identified in the mining scenario -- a lot of researcher selection in finding maintainers who are likely to be familiar with it a lot of analysis on whether or not adopting dependabot works, like whether the thing that people are doing to adapt is… actually working… even though dependabot is not that useful for automatic updates, many developers believe that it is useful for notifying updates
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: 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