skip to main content
10.1145/3132498.3134110acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessbcarsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A structured survey on the usage of the issue tracking system provided by the GitHub platform

Published:18 September 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Issue tracking systems help software development teams in identifying problems to be solved and new features to be added to a software system. In this paper, we replicate and extend a study carried out in 2013 on the usage of the issue tracking system provided by the GitHub platform. The replication aims at determining whether the results observed four years ago are still valid. The extension seeks to analyze how often issues are terminated by commits to the version control system and understand whether this feature allows developers to relate an issue to the source code modules that were changed to resolve it. We conclude that the results of the previous study remain valid and that issues closed by commits are uncommon (about 4% of our sample) and often linked to technical aspects of the project.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. T.F. Bissyande, D. Lo, J.Lingxiao, L. Reveillere, and Y. Le Traon. 2013. Got Issues? Who Cares About It? A Large Scale Investigation of Issue Trackers from GitHub. In IEEE 24th Intl Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering. 188--197.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. J. Cabot, J.L.C. Izquierdo, and V. Cosentino. 2015. Exploring the Use of Labels to Categorize Issues in Open-Source Software Projects. In Software Analysis, Evolution and Re engineering (SANER'15). 550--554.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. J. Cohen. 1992. A Power Primer. Psychological Bulletin (1992), 155--159.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. L. Dabbish, C. Stuart, J. Tasy, and J. Herbsleb. 2012. Social Coding in GitHub: Transparency and Collaboration in an Open Software Repository. In ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 1277--1286. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. E. Kalliamvakou, K. Blincoe, L. Singer, and D. Damian. 2014. The Promises and Perils of Mining GitHub. In 11th Working Conference on Minig Software Repositories (MSR'14). 92--101. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. M.J. Lee, B. Ferwerda, J. Choi, J. Hahn, J. Moon, and J. Kim. 2013. GitHub developers use rockstars to overcome overflow of News. In Human Factors in Computing System. 233. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Y. Weicheng, S. Beijun, and X. Ben. 2013. Mining GitHub: Why commit stops - Exploring the relationship between developer's commit pattern and file version evolution. In Proc. of the Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference. 165--169.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. J. Xavier, A. Macedo, and M. A. Maia. 2014. Understanding the popularity of reporters and assignees in the Github. In 26th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering. 484--489.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. E. Yong. 2012. Bad Copy. Nature 495 (2012), 298--300.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. A structured survey on the usage of the issue tracking system provided by the GitHub platform

    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 Other conferences
      SBCARS '17: Proceedings of the 11th Brazilian Symposium on Software Components, Architectures, and Reuse
      September 2017
      129 pages
      ISBN:9781450353250
      DOI:10.1145/3132498

      Copyright © 2017 ACM

      © 2017 Association for Computing Machinery. ACM acknowledges that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee, contractor or affiliate of a national government. As such, the Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for Government purposes only.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 18 September 2017

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      SBCARS '17 Paper Acceptance Rate12of39submissions,31%Overall Acceptance Rate23of79submissions,29%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader