skip to main content
10.1145/1718918.1718973acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescscwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Information needs in bug reports: improving cooperation between developers and users

Published:06 February 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

For many software projects, bug tracking systems play a central role in supporting collaboration between the developers and the users of the software. To better understand this collaboration and how tool support can be improved, we have quantitatively and qualitatively analysed the questions asked in a sample of 600 bug reports from the MOZILLA and ECLIPSE projects. We categorised the questions and analysed response rates and times by category and project. Our results show that the role of users goes beyond simply reporting bugs: their active and ongoing participation is important for making progress on the bugs they report. Based on the results, we suggest four ways in which bug tracking systems can be improved.

References

  1. J. Anvik, L. Hiew, and G. C. Murphy. Who should fix this bug? In ICSE '06, pages 361--370, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. J. Aranda and G. Venolia. The secret life of bugs: Going past the errors and omissions in software repositories. In ICSE '09, pages 298--308, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. I. Barker. What is information architecture? KM Column, available at http://www.steptwo.com.au, April 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. V. R. Basili, F. Shull, and F. Lanubile. Building knowledge through families of experiments. IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 25(4):456--473, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. N. Bettenburg, S. Just, A. Schr¨oter, C. Weiss, R. Premraj, and T. Zimmermann. What makes a good bug report? In SIGSOFT '08/FSE-16, pages 308--318, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. N. Bettenburg, R. Premraj, T. Zimmermann, and S. Kim. Duplicate bug reports considered harmful... really? In ICSM '08, pages 337--345, September 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. S. Breu, R. Premraj, J. Sillito, and T. Zimmermann. Appendix to Information Needs in Bug Reports Technical Report 2009-945-24, Dept. of Computer Science. University of Calgary, October 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. A. Erdem, W. L. Johnson, and S. Marsella. Task oriented software understanding. In ASE '98, pages 230--239, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. J. L. Fleiss. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5):378--382, 1971.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. C. A. Halverson, J. B. Ellis, C. Danis, and W. A. Kellogg. Designing task visualizations to support the coordination of work in software development. In CSCW '06, pages 39--48, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. J. D. Herbsleb and E. Kuwana. Preserving knowledge in design projects: what designers need to know. In CHI '93, pages 7--14, 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. N. Jalbert and W. Weimer. Automated duplicate detection for bug tracking systems. In DSN '08, pages 52--61, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. J. Spolsky. Joel on Software blog. FogBUGZ. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/news/fog0000000162.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. W. L. Johnson and A. Erdem. Interactive explanation of software systems. Automated Software Engineering, 4(1):53--75, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. S. Just, R. Premraj, and T. Zimmermann. Towards the next generation of bug tracking systems. In VL/HCC '08, pages 82--85, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. A. J. Ko, R. DeLine, and G. Venolia. Information needs in collocated software development teams. In ICSE '07, pages 344--353, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. A. J. Ko, B. A. Myers, and D. H. Chau. A linguistic analysis of how people describe software problems. In VL/HCC, pages 127--134, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. A. J. Ko, B. A. Myers, M. J. Coblenz, and H. H. Aung. An exploratory study of how developers seek, relate, and collect relevant information during software maintenance tasks. IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 32(12):971--987, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. J. Landis and G. G. Koch. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1):159--174, 1977.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Ø. Langsrud. ANOVA for unbalanced data: Use Type II instead of Type III sums of squares. Statistics and Computing, 13(2):163--167, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2008. ISBN 3-900051-07-0.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. P. C. Rigby, D. M. German, and M.-A. Storey. Open source software peer review practices: a case study of the apache server. In ICSE '08, pages 541--550, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. G. Ripoche and J. P. Sansonet. Experiences in automating the analysis of linguistic interactions for the study of distributed collectives. Journal Comput. Supported Coop. Work, 15(2-3):149--183, 2006 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. P. Runeson, M. Alexandersson, and O. Nyholm. Detection of duplicate defect reports using natural language processing. In ICSE '07, pages 499--510, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. R. J. Sandusky. Information, activity and social order in distributed work: The case of distributed software problem management. PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. R. J. Sandusky and L. Gasser. Negotiation and the coordination of information and activity in distributed software problem management. In GROUP '05, pages 187--196, 2005 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. J. Sillito, G. C. Murphy, and K. D. Volder. Questions programmers ask during software evolution tasks. In SIGSOFT '06/FSE-14, pages 23--34, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. X. Wang, L. Zhang, T. Xie, J. Anvik, and J. Sun. An approach to detecting duplicate bug reports using natural language and execution information. In ICSE '08, pages 461--470, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Information needs in bug reports: improving cooperation between developers and users

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          CSCW '10: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work
          February 2010
          468 pages
          ISBN:9781605587950
          DOI:10.1145/1718918

          Copyright © 2010 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 6 February 2010

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate2,235of8,521submissions,26%

          Upcoming Conference

          CSCW '24

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader