The Impact of Human Factors on the Participation Decision of Reviewers in Modern Code Review

June 27, 2018 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› Empirical Software Engineering

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Shade Ruangwan, Patanamon Thongtanunam, Akinori Ihara, Kenichi Matsumoto arXiv ID 1806.10277 Category cs.SE: Software Engineering Citations 51 Venue Empirical Software Engineering Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
Modern Code Review (MCR) plays a key role in software quality practices. In MCR process, a new patch (i.e., a set of code changes) is encouraged to be examined by reviewers in order to identify weaknesses in source code prior to an integration into main software repositories. To mitigate the risk of having future defects, prior work suggests that MCR should be performed with sufficient review participation. Indeed, recent work shows that a low number of participated reviewers is associated with poor software quality. However, there is a likely case that a new patch still suffers from poor review participation even though reviewers were invited. Hence, in this paper, we set out to investigate the factors that are associated with the participation decision of an invited reviewer. Through a case study of 230,090 patches spread across the Android, LibreOffice, OpenStack and Qt systems, we find that (1) 16%-66% of patches have at least one invited reviewer who did not respond to the review invitation; (2) human factors play an important role in predicting whether or not an invited reviewer will participate in a review; (3) a review participation rate of an invited reviewers and code authoring experience of an invited reviewer are highly associated with the participation decision of an invited reviewer. These results can help practitioners better understand about how human factors associate with the participation decision of reviewers and serve as guidelines for inviting reviewers, leading to a better inviting decision and a better reviewer participation.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Software Engineering

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted