Forking and pull requests have been widely used in open-source communities as a uniform development and contribution mechanism, giving developers the flexibility to modify their own fork without affecting others before attempting to contribute back. However, not all projects use forks efficiently; many experience lost and duplicate contributions and fragmented communities. In this paper, we explore how open-source projects on GitHub differ with regard to forking inefficiencies. First, we observed that different communities experience these inefficiencies to widely different degrees and interviewed practitioners to understand why. Then, using multiple regression modeling, we analyzed which context factors correlate with fewer inefficiencies. We found that better modularity and centralized management are associated with more contributions and a higher fraction of accepted pull requests, suggesting specific best practices that project maintainers can adopt to reduce forking-related inefficiencies in their communities. CCS CONCEPTS • Software and its engineering → Collaboration in software development; Open source model.

Fork-based development has been widely used both in open source communities and in industry, because it gives developers flexibility to modify their own fork without affecting others. Unfortunately, this mechanism has downsides: When the number of forks becomes large, it is difficult for developers to get or maintain an overview of activities in the forks. Current tools provide little help. We introduce Infox, an approach to automatically identify non-merged features in forks and to generate an overview of active forks in a project. The approach clusters cohesive code fragments using code and networkanalysis techniques and uses information-retrieval techniques to label clusters with keywords. The clustering is effective, with 90 % accuracy on a set of known features. In addition, a human-subject evaluation shows that Infox can provide actionable insight for developers of forks.

No abstract

The notion of forking has changed with the rise of distributed version control systems and social coding environments, like GitHub. Traditionally forking refers to splitting off an independent development branch (which we call hard forks); research on hard forks, conducted mostly in pre-GitHub days showed that hard forks were often seen critical as they may fragment a community. Today, in social coding environments, open-source developers are encouraged to fork a project in order to contribute to the community (which we call social forks), which may have also influenced perceptions and practices around hard forks. To revisit hard forks, we identify, study, and classify 15,306 hard forks on GitHub and interview 18 owners of hard forks or forked repositories. We find that, among others, hard forks often evolve out of social forks rather than being planned deliberately and that perception about hard forks have indeed changed dramatically, seeing them often as a positive noncompetitive alternative to the original project.

No abstract