Why Does Code Review Work for Open Source Software Communities?

Alami, Adam; Cohn, Marisa Leavitt; Wąsowski, Andrzej

doi:10.1109/icse.2019.00111

Cited by 29 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By analyzing discussions in code reviews Tsay et al found that not only do most changes relate to evolvability, evolvability is also explicitly discussed during a code review by both author and reviewer(s) [32]. Alami et al [33] have interviewed 21 open source contributors to understand how code reviews are applied. They find that even though rejections are a part of code reviews, practitioners choose to use code reviews to ensure code quality is improved.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Silent Helper: The Impact of Continuous Integration on Code Reviews

Cassee

Vasilescu

Serebrenik

2020

2020 IEEE 27th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

DOI to the publisher's website. • The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review. • The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal. If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User Agreement:

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Silent Helper: The Impact of Continuous Integration on Code Reviews

Cassee

Vasilescu

Serebrenik

2020

2020 IEEE 27th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous research established that code review in open source software communities is common and successful in eliminating a large number of errors [7,26,27]. Alami et al [2] find that open source software developers develop a mature attitude to negative feedback and improve their code through a cycle of review, rejection, and improvement.…”

Section: Towards a Safer Rustmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is rust used safely by software developers?

Evans

Campbell

Soffa

2020

Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rust, an emerging programming language with explosive growth, provides a robust type system that enables programmers to write memory-safe and data-race free code. To allow access to a machine's hardware and to support low-level performance optimizations, a second language, Unsafe Rust, is embedded in Rust. It contains support for operations that are difficult to statically check, such as C-style pointers for access to arbitrary memory locations and mutable global variables. When a program uses these features, the compiler is unable to statically guarantee the safety properties Rust promotes. In this work, we perform a large-scale empirical study to explore how software developers are using Unsafe Rust in real-world Rust libraries and applications. Our results indicate that software engineers use the keyword unsafe in less than 30% of Rust libraries, but more than half cannot be entirely statically checked by the Rust compiler because of Unsafe Rust hidden somewhere in a library's call chain. We conclude that although the use of the keyword unsafe is limited, the propagation of unsafeness offers a challenge to the claim of Rust as a memory-safe language. Furthermore, we recommend changes to the Rust compiler and to the central Rust repository's interface to help Rust software developers be aware of when their Rust code is unsafe.

show abstract

“…Given the sensitivity of the interview topics, we conducted interviews with informed consent and according to a strict ethical protocol. 1 Participants were recruited in two samples by randomly inviting developers from the company's human resources database. Although Google has developers in multiple countries, all interviewees were based in US oces.…”

Section: Interviews About Code Review Pushbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…. harsh language deliberately as a 'congestion control' mechanism" [1] and that, for women in particular, negative interpersonal interactions are "as constant as [they are] extreme" [14].…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several papers have examined the benets of code review. Alami and colleagues interviewed 21 open source developers about why code review works for open source communities, nding that rejection is important because it helps maintain code quality and that success in contributing to open source depends on being able to handle rejection [1]. Open source communities have mechanisms to mitigate rejection, including an ethic of passion and caring.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Predicting developers' negative feelings about code review

Egelman

Murphy-Hill

Kammer

et al. 2020

Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During code review, developers critically examine each others' code to improve its quality, share knowledge, and ensure conformance to coding standards. In the process, developers may have negative interpersonal interactions with their peers, which can lead to frustration and stress; these negative interactions may ultimately result in developers abandoning projects. In this mixed-methods study at one company, we surveyed 1,317 developers to characterize the negative experiences and cross-referenced the results with objective data from code review logs to predict these experiences. Our results suggest that such negative experiences, which we call "pushback", are relatively rare in practice, but have negative repercussions when they occur. Our metrics can predict feelings of pushback with high recall but low precision, making them potentially appropriate for highlighting interactions that may benet from a self-intervention.

show abstract

Why Does Code Review Work for Open Source Software Communities?

Cited by 29 publications

References 33 publications

The Silent Helper: The Impact of Continuous Integration on Code Reviews

The Silent Helper: The Impact of Continuous Integration on Code Reviews

Is rust used safely by software developers?

Predicting developers' negative feelings about code review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About