skip to main content
10.1145/2950290.2983973acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
abstract

Social health cues developers use when choosing open source packages

Published:01 November 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Developers choose open source packages from many alternatives. One increasingly important factor when choosing a package is its "social health", or a developer’s ability to get help on communication channels. We conduct a study to understand how developers learn about the social health of open source packages before using them. We offer preliminary results of the cues developers find.

References

  1. Awesome Python. https://python.libhunt.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. package-quality. https://github.com/alexfernandez/package-quality.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Ruby Toolbox. https://www.ruby-toolbox.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. J. Brandt, P. J. Guo, J. Lewenstein, M. Dontcheva, and S. R. Klemmer. Two studies of opportunistic programming: Interleaving web foraging, learning, and writing code. CHI ’09. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. A. J. Ko, R. DeLine, and G. Venolia. Information Needs in Collocated Software Development Teams. ICSE ’07. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. T. D. LaToza, G. Venolia, and R. DeLine. Maintaining mental models: A study of developer work habits. ICSE ’06. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. T. C. Lethbridge, J. Singer, and A. Forward. How software engineers use documentation: the state of the practice. IEEE Software, 20(6), 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. M. Linares-Vásquez, G. Bavota, M. Di Penta, R. Oliveto, and D. Poshyvanyk. How do API changes trigger stack overflow discussions? a study on the Android SDK. ICPC ’14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. L. Mamykina, B. Manoim, M. Mittal, G. Hripcsak, and B. Hartmann. Design lessons from the fastest q&a site in the west. CHI ’11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. J. Nykaza, R. Messinger, F. Boehme, C. L. Norman, M. Mace, and M. Gordon. What programmers really want: results of a needs assessment for sdk documentation. SIGDOC ’02. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. C. Parnin, C. Treude, and M. A. Storey. Blogging developer knowledge: Motivations, challenges, and future directions. ICPC ’13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. M. P. Robillard and R. Deline. A field study of API learning obstacles. Empirical Software Engineering, 16(6), 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. L. Singer, F. Figueira Filho, and M.-A. Storey. Software engineering at the speed of light: how developers stay current using twitter. ICSE ’14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. M.-A. Storey, L. Singer, B. Cleary, F. Figueira Filho, and A. Zagalsky. The (R) Evolution of social media in software engineering. FOSE ’14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. M. A. Storey, A. Zagalsky, F. Filho, L. Singer, and D. German. How Social and Communication Channels Shape and Challenge a Participatory Culture in Software Development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, PP(99), 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Social health cues developers use when choosing open source packages

              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
                FSE 2016: Proceedings of the 2016 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering
                November 2016
                1156 pages
                ISBN:9781450342186
                DOI:10.1145/2950290

                Copyright © 2016 Owner/Author

                Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

                Publisher

                Association for Computing Machinery

                New York, NY, United States

                Publication History

                • Published: 1 November 2016

                Check for updates

                Qualifiers

                • abstract

                Acceptance Rates

                Overall Acceptance Rate17of128submissions,13%

              PDF Format

              View or Download as a PDF file.

              PDF

              eReader

              View online with eReader.

              eReader