Open source development projects typically support an open bug repository to which both developers and users can report bugs. The reports that appear in this repository must be triaged to determine if the report is one which requires attention and if it is, which developer will be assigned the responsibility of resolving the report. Large open source developments are burdened by the rate at which new bug reports appear in the bug repository. In this paper, we present a semi-automated approach intended to ease one part of this process, the assignment of reports to a developer. Our approach applies a machine learning algorithm to the open bug repository to learn the kinds of reports each developer resolves. When a new report arrives, the classifier produced by the machine learning technique suggests a small number of developers suitable to resolve the report. With this approach, we have reached precision levels of 57% and 64% on the Eclipse and Firefox development projects respectively. We have also applied our approach to the gcc open source development with less positive results. We describe the conditions under which the approach is applicable and also report on the lessons we learned about applying machine learning to repositories used in open source development.

/pdf/who-should-fix-this-bug-56jdtch9pp.pdf

Who should fix this bug

Globally-distributed projects are rapidly becoming the norm for large software systems, even as it becomes clear that global distribution of a project seriously impairs critical coordination mechanisms. In this paper, I describe a desired future for global development and the problems that stand in the way of achieving that vision. I review research and lay out research challenges in four critical areas: software architecture, eliciting and communicating requirements, environments and tools, and orchestrating global development. I conclude by noting the need for a systematic understanding of what drives the need to coordinate and effective mechanisms for bringing it about.

/pdf/global-software-engineering-the-future-of-socio-technical-3k7hsetyko.pdf

Global Software Engineering: The Future of Socio-technical Coordination

Defect prediction models are a well-known technique for identifying defect-prone files or packages such that practitioners can allocate their quality assurance efforts (e.g., testing and code reviews). However, once the critical files or packages have been identified, developers still need to spend considerable time drilling down to the functions or even code snippets that should be reviewed or tested. This makes the approach too time consuming and impractical for large software systems. Instead, we consider defect prediction models that focus on identifying defect-prone (“risky”) software changes instead of files or packages. We refer to this type of quality assurance activity as “Just-In-Time Quality Assurance,” because developers can review and test these risky changes while they are still fresh in their minds (i.e., at check-in time). To build a change risk model, we use a wide range of factors based on the characteristics of a software change, such as the number of added lines, and developer experience. A large-scale study of six open source and five commercial projects from multiple domains shows that our models can predict whether or not a change will lead to a defect with an average accuracy of 68 percent and an average recall of 64 percent. Furthermore, when considering the effort needed to review changes, we find that using only 20 percent of the effort it would take to inspect all changes, we can identify 35 percent of all defect-inducing changes. Our findings indicate that “Just-In-Time Quality Assurance” may provide an effort-reducing way to focus on the most risky changes and thus reduce the costs of developing high-quality software.

/pdf/a-large-scale-empirical-study-of-just-in-time-quality-oqb4b5ys1y.pdf

A large-scale empirical study of just-in-time quality assurance

Searching an organization's document repositories for experts provides a cost effective solution for the task of expert finding. We present two general strategies to expert searching given a document collection which are formalized using generative probabilistic models. The first of these directly models an expert's knowledge based on the documents that they are associated with, whilst the second locates documents on topic, and then finds the associated expert. Forming reliable associations is crucial to the performance of expert finding systems. Consequently, in our evaluation we compare the different approaches, exploring a variety of associations along with other operational parameters (such as topicality). Using the TREC Enterprise corpora, we show that the second strategy consistently outperforms the first. A comparison against other unsupervised techniques, reveals that our second model delivers excellent performance.

/pdf/formal-models-for-expert-finding-in-enterprise-corpora-28sj37a1m8.pdf

Formal models for expert finding in enterprise corpora

Software development can be challenging because of the large information spaces that developers must navigate. Without assistance, developers can become bogged down and spend a disproportionate amount of their time seeking information at the expense of other value-producing tasks. Recommendation systems for software engineering (RSSEs) are software tools that can assist developers with a wide range of activities, from reusing code to writing effective bug reports. The authors provide an overview of recommendation systems for software engineering: what they are, what they can do for developers, and what they might do in the future.

Recommendation Systems for Software Engineering

Expertise Browser: a quantitative approach to identifying expertise

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Mockus

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Expertise Browser: a quantitative approach to identifying expertise