Adapting the "staged model for software evolution" to free/libre/open source software

Capiluppi, Andrea; González-Barahona, Jesús M.; Herraiz, Israel; Robles, Gregório

doi:10.1145/1294948.1294968

Cited by 23 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 24 publications

(25 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This may be viewed as a refinement of the Rajlich and Bennett model, where developments done in one branch are propagated to another branch that is developed in parallel. Capiluppi et al have observed that in open-source projects a legacy system may be picked up and revived by a new set of developers, thus returning it to the evolution phase [9].…”

Section: Lifecycle Models For Long-lived Software Projectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perpetual development: A model of the Linux kernel life cycle

Feitelson

2012

Journal of Systems and Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Software evolution is widely recognized as an important and common phenomenon, whereby the system follows an ever-extending development trajectory with intermittent releases. Nevertheless there have been only few lifecycle models that attempt to portray such evolution. We use the evolution of the Linux kernel as the basis for the formulation of such a model, integrating the progress in time with growth of the codebase, and differentiating between development of new functionality and maintenance of production versions. A unique element of the model is the sequence of activities involved in releasing new production versions, and how this has changed with the growth of Linux. In particular, the release follow-up phase before the forking of a new development version, which was prominent in early releases of production versions, has been eliminated in favor of a concurrent merge window in the release of 2.6.x versions. We also show that a piecewise linear model with increasing slopes provides the best description of the growth of Linux. The perpetual development model is used as a framework in which commonly recognized benefits of incremental and evolutionary development may be demonstrated, and to comment on issues such as architecture, conservation of familiarity, and failed projects. We suggest that this model and variants thereof may apply to many other projects in addition to Linux.

show abstract

Section: Lifecycle Models For Long-lived Software Projectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perpetual development: A model of the Linux kernel life cycle

Feitelson

2012

Journal of Systems and Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Instead of using the model that was built mainly by observing traditional software development, Capiluppi et al [43] revised the staged model for its applicability to OSS evolution.…”

Section: -Exogenous Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Software architecture evolution through evolvability analysis

Breivold¹,

Crnković²,

Larsson³

2012

Journal of Systems and Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…One could inadvertently misclassify dormant projects as "inactive"; projects could be renamed in the meantime, or even just moved to dedicated repositories. 3 The information on such inferred inactivity has relevant external effects: from an end-user's point of view, organizations and private users would not want to invest money or time to deploy or evaluate inactive projects, or those with few or no contributors to perform future maintenance. From a developers' point of view, the original authors should take the responsibility to inform others that they are no longer interested (or able) to support or enhance their project.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This would introduce one of the most powerful mechanisms in OSS development, namely the possibility for another developer to take over the project from one or more previous developers who lost interest in it [15,3]. Thus, we identified two key motivations for accurately labelling inactive or abandoned projects:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is It All Lost? A Study of Inactive Open Source Projects

Khondhu

Capiluppi

Stol

2013

Open Source Software: Quality Verification

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Open Source Software (OSS) proponents suggest that when developers lose interest in their project, their last duty is to "hand it off to a competent successor." However, the mechanisms of such a hand-off are not clear, or widely known among OSS developers. As a result, many OSS projects, after a certain long period of evolution, stop evolving, in fact becoming "inactive" or "abandoned" projects. This paper presents an analysis of the population of projects contained within one of the largest OSS repositories available (SourceForge.net), in order to describe how projects abandoned by their developers can be identified, and to discuss the attributes and characteristics of these inactive projects. In particular, the paper attempts to differentiate projects that experienced maintainability issues from those that are inactive for other reasons, in order to be able to correlate common characteristics to the "failure" of these projects.

show abstract

Adapting the "staged model for software evolution" to free/libre/open source software

Abstract: Research into traditional software evolution has been tackled from two

Cited by 23 publications

References 24 publications

Perpetual development: A model of the Linux kernel life cycle

Perpetual development: A model of the Linux kernel life cycle

Software architecture evolution through evolvability analysis

Is It All Lost? A Study of Inactive Open Source Projects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About