Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1109/ESEM.2017.7acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesesemConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Are one-time contributors different?: a comparison to core and periphery developers in FLOSS repositories

Published: 09 November 2017 Publication History

Abstract

Context: Free/Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) communities consist of different types of contributors. Core contributors and peripheral contributors work together to create a successful project, each playing a different role. One-Time Contributors (OTCs), who are on the very fringe of the peripheral developers, are largely unstudied despite offering unique insights into the development process. In a prior survey, we identified OTCs and discovered their motivations and barriers. Aims: The objective of this study is to corroborate the survey results and provide a better understand of OTCs. We compare OTCs to other peripheral and core contributors to determine whether they are distinct. Method: We mined data from the same code-review repository used to identify survey respondents in our previous study. After identifying each contributor as core, periphery, or OTC, we compared them in terms of patch size, time interval from submission to decision, the nature of their conversations, and patch acceptance rates. Results: We identified a continuum between core developers and OTCs. OTCs create smaller patches, face longer time intervals between patch submission and rejection, have longer review conversations, and face lower patch acceptance rates. Conversely, core contributors create larger patches, face shorter time intervals for feedback, have shorter review conversations, and have patches accepted at the highest rate. The peripheral developers fall in between the OTCs and the core contributors. Conclusion: OTCs do, in fact, face the barriers identified in our prior survey. They represent a distinct group of contributors compared to core and peripheral developers.

References

[1]
A. Bosu, J. Carver, R. Guadagno, B. Bassett, D. McCallum, and L. Hochstein. Peer impressions in open source organizations: A survey. Journal of Systems and Software, 94:4 -- 15, 2014.
[2]
A. Bosu and J. C. Carver. Impact of developer reputation on code review outcomes in oss projects: An empirical investigation. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM '14, pages 33:1--33:10, New York, NY, USA, 2014. ACM.
[3]
N. Ducheneaut. Socialization in an open source software community: A socio-technical analysis. Comput. Supported Coop. Work, 14(4):323--368, Aug. 2005.
[4]
K. Lakhani and R. Wolf. Why Hackers Do What They Do: Understanding Motivation and Effort in Free/Open Source Software Projects. MIT Press, Cambridge, 2005.
[5]
A. Lee, J. C. Carver, and A. Bosu. Understanding one time contributors to floss projects. In 39th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), 2017.
[6]
S. Panichella. Supporting newcomers in software development projects. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME), pages 586--589, Sept 2015.
[7]
R. Pham, L. Singer, O. Liskin, F. F. Filho, and K. Schneider. Creating a shared understanding of testing culture on a social coding site. In 2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pages 112--121, May 2013.
[8]
G. Pinto, I. Steinmacher, and M. A. Gerosa. More common than you think: An in-depth study of casual contributors. In 2016 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER), volume 1, pages 112--123, March 2016.
[9]
P. Setia, B. Rajagopalan, V. Sambamurthy, and R. Calantone. How peripheral developers contribute to open-source software development. Info. Sys. Research, 23(1):144--163, Mar. 2012.
[10]
S. K. Shah. Motivation, governance, and the viability of hybrid forms in open source software development. Management Science, 52(7):1000--1014, 2006.
[11]
I. Steinmacher, T. Conte, M. A. Gerosa, and D. Redmiles. Social barriers faced by newcomers placing their first contribution in open source software projects. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, CSCW '15, pages 1379--1392, New York, NY, USA, 2015. ACM.
[12]
I. Steinmacher, I. S. Wiese, T. Conte, M. A. Gerosa, and D. Redmiles. The hard life of open source software project newcomers. In Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering, CHASE 2014, pages 72--78, New York, NY, USA, 2014. ACM.
[13]
G. von Krogh, S. Spaeth, and K. R. Lakhani. Community, joining, and specialization in open source software innovation: a case study. Research Policy, 32(7):1217 -- 1241, 2003. Open Source Software Development.
[14]
P. Weissgerber, D. Neu, and S. Diehl. Small patches get in! In Proceedings of the 2008 International Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR '08, pages 67--76, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM.
[15]
M. Zhou and A. Mockus. What make long term contributors: Willingness and opportunity in oss community. In 2012 34th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pages 518--528, June 2012.
[16]
M. Zhou and A. Mockus. Who will stay in the floss community? modeling participant's initial behavior. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 41(1):82--99, Jan 2015.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Sustaining Maintenance Labor for Healthy Open Source Software Projects through Human Infrastructure: A Maintainer PerspectiveProceedings of the 18th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement10.1145/3674805.3686667(37-48)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2024
  • (2024)How Are Paid and Volunteer Open Source Developers Different? A Study of the Rust ProjectProceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering10.1145/3597503.3639197(1-13)Online publication date: 20-May-2024
  • (2023)Investigating Developers' Contributions to Test Smell Survivability: A Study of Open-Source ProjectsProceedings of the 8th Brazilian Symposium on Systematic and Automated Software Testing10.1145/3624032.3624044(86-95)Online publication date: 25-Sep-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
ESEM '17: Proceedings of the 11th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement
November 2017
481 pages
ISBN:9781509040391

Sponsors

Publisher

IEEE Press

Publication History

Published: 09 November 2017

Check for updates

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

ESEM '17
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 130 of 594 submissions, 22%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)5
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 19 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Sustaining Maintenance Labor for Healthy Open Source Software Projects through Human Infrastructure: A Maintainer PerspectiveProceedings of the 18th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement10.1145/3674805.3686667(37-48)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2024
  • (2024)How Are Paid and Volunteer Open Source Developers Different? A Study of the Rust ProjectProceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering10.1145/3597503.3639197(1-13)Online publication date: 20-May-2024
  • (2023)Investigating Developers' Contributions to Test Smell Survivability: A Study of Open-Source ProjectsProceedings of the 8th Brazilian Symposium on Systematic and Automated Software Testing10.1145/3624032.3624044(86-95)Online publication date: 25-Sep-2023
  • (2023)Automatic Core-Developer Identification on GitHub: A Validation StudyACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/359380332:6(1-29)Online publication date: 30-Sep-2023
  • (2022)An empirical study on the influence of developers’ experience on software test code qualityProceedings of the XXI Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality10.1145/3571473.3571481(1-10)Online publication date: 7-Nov-2022
  • (2022)Do small code changes merge faster?Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories10.1145/3524842.3528448(537-548)Online publication date: 23-May-2022
  • (2019)Patterns of Effort Contribution and Demand and User Classification based on Participation Patterns in NPM EcosystemProceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Predictive Models and Data Analytics in Software Engineering10.1145/3345629.3345634(36-45)Online publication date: 18-Sep-2019
  • (2019)Managing the open cathedralProceedings of the 2019 27th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering10.1145/3338906.3341461(1176-1179)Online publication date: 12-Aug-2019
  • (2019)Why do episodic volunteers stay in FLOSS communities?Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Software Engineering10.1109/ICSE.2019.00100(948-954)Online publication date: 25-May-2019
  • (2019)FLOSS participants' perceptions about gender and inclusivenessProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Software Engineering10.1109/ICSE.2019.00077(677-687)Online publication date: 25-May-2019
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media