Data from software repositories have become an important foundation for the empirical study of software engineering processes. A recurring theme in the repository mining literature is the inference of developer networks capturing e.g. collaboration, coordination, or communication, from the commit history of projects. Most of the studied networks are based on the co-authorship of software artefacts defined at the level of files, modules, or packages. While this approach has led to insights into the social aspects of software development, it neglects detailed information on code changes and code ownership, e.g. which exact lines of code have been authored by which developers, that is contained in the commit log of software projects. Addressing this issue, we introduce git2net, a scalable python software that facilitates the extraction of fine-grained co-editing networks in large git repositories. It uses text mining techniques to analyse the detailed history of textual modifications within files. This information allows us to construct directed, weighted, and time-stamped networks, where a link signifies that one developer has edited a block of source code originally written by another developer. Our tool is applied in case studies of an Open Source and a commercial software project. We argue that it opens up a massive new source of high-resolution data on human collaboration patterns.
The majority of works mining social networks from software repositories build on this general idea. In @cite_19 @cite_28 @cite_31 @cite_34 @cite_45 a file-based notion of co-authorship is used to construct , where a link between two developers signifies that they have committed the same file at least once. The authors of @cite_49 adopt a module-based definition, assuming that two developers are linked in the co-authorship network if they have contributed to at least one common module. Taking a similar approach, Huang and Liu use information on modified file paths in SourceForge repositories to infer relations between authors editing the same part of a project. Incorporating the time stamps of commits, Pohl and Diehl used a file-based co-authorship definition to construct developer networks that can be analysed and visualised using methods from dynamic network analysis @cite_10 . The authors of recently developed a similar approach to study the ecosystem of software projects on gitHub . To this end, they define project-level co-commit networks, i.e. a projection of commits where two developers are linked if they committed to the same Open Source project. provided a related study, analysing ten years of data from the Open Source project hosting platform SourceForge .
@cite_28 @cite_19 @cite_45 @cite_49 @cite_31 @cite_34 @cite_10
1608828583 2049086518 2082539579 1984769753
This article introduces a suite of approaches and measures to study the impact of co-authorship teams based on the number of publications and their citations on a local and global scale. In particular, we present a novel weighted graph representation that encodes coupled author-paper networks as a weighted co-authorship graph. This weighted graph representation is applied to a dataset that captures the emergence of a new field of science and comprises 614 articles published by 1036 unique authors between 1974 and 2004. To characterize the properties and evolution of this field, we first use four different measures of centrality to identify the impact of authors. A global statistical analysis is performed to characterize the distribution of paper production and paper citations and its correlation with the co-authorship team size. The size of co-authorship clusters over time is examined. Finally, a novel local, author-centered measure based on entropy is applied to determine the global evolution of the field and the identification of the contribution of a single author's impact across all of its co-authorship relations. A visualization of the growth of the weighted co-author network, and the results obtained from the statistical analysis indicate a drift toward a more cooperative, global collaboration process as the main drive in the production of scientific knowledge. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Complexity 10: 57–67, 2005 In this study, we propose and validate social networks based theoretical model for exploring scholars' collaboration (co-authorship) network properties associated with their citation-based research performance (i.e., g-index). Using structural holes theory, we focus on how a scholar's egocentric network properties of density, efficiency and constraint within the network associate with their scholarly performance. For our analysis, we use publication data of high impact factor journals in the field of ''Information Science & Library Science'' between 2000 and 2009, extracted from Scopus. The resulting database contained 4837 publications reflecting the contributions of 8069 authors. Results from our data analysis suggest that research performance of scholars' is significantly correlated with scholars' ego-network measures. In particular, scholars with more co-authors and those who exhibit higher levels of betweenness centrality (i.e., the extent to which a co-author is between another pair of co-authors) perform better in terms of research (i.e., higher g-index). Furthermore, scholars with efficient collaboration networks who maintain a strong co-authorship relationship with one primary co-author within a group of linked co-authors (i.e., co-authors that have joint publications) perform better than those researchers with many relationships to the same group of linked co-authors. Display Omitted ContextNumerous open source software projects are based on volunteers collaboration and require a continuous influx of newcomers for their continuity. Newcomers face barriers that can lead them to give up. These barriers hinder both developers willing to make a single contribution and those willing to become a project member. ObjectiveThis study aims to identify and classify the barriers that newcomers face when contributing to open source software projects. MethodWe conducted a systematic literature review of papers reporting empirical evidence regarding the barriers that newcomers face when contributing to open source software (OSS) projects. We retrieved 291 studies by querying 4 digital libraries. Twenty studies were identified as primary. We performed a backward snowballing approach, and searched for other papers published by the authors of the selected papers to identify potential studies. Then, we used a coding approach inspired by open coding and axial coding procedures from Grounded Theory to categorize the barriers reported by the selected studies. ResultsWe identified 20 studies providing empirical evidence of barriers faced by newcomers to OSS projects while making a contribution. From the analysis, we identified 15 different barriers, which we grouped into five categories: social interaction, newcomers' previous knowledge, finding a way to start, documentation, and technical hurdles. We also classified the problems with regard to their origin: newcomers, community, or product. ConclusionThe results are useful to researchers and OSS practitioners willing to investigate or to implement tools to support newcomers. We mapped technical and non-technical barriers that hinder newcomers' first contributions. The most evidenced barriers are related to socialization, appearing in 75 (15 out of 20) of the studies analyzed, with a high focus on interactions in mailing lists (receiving answers and socialization with other members). There is a lack of in-depth studies on technical issues, such as code issues. We also noticed that the majority of the studies relied on historical data gathered from software repositories and that there was a lack of experiments and qualitative studies in this area. Modern software is often developed over many years with hundreds of thousands of commits. Commit metadata is a rich source of social characteristics, including the commit's time of day and the experience and commit frequency of its author. The "bugginess" of a commit is also a critical property of that commit. In this paper, we investigate the correlation between a commit's social characteristics and its "bugginess"; such results can be very useful for software developers and software engineering researchers. For instance, developers or code reviewers might be well-advised to thoroughly verify commits that are more likely to be buggy. In this paper, we study the correlation between a commit's bugginess and the time of day of the commit, the day of week of the commit, and the experience and commit frequency of the commit authors. We survey two widely-used open source projects: the Linux kernel and PostgreSQL. Our main findings include: (1) commits submitted between midnight and 4 AM (referred to as late-night commits) are significantly buggier and commits between 7 AM and noon are less buggy, implying that developers may want to double-check their own latenight commits; (2) daily-committing developers produce less-buggy commits, indicating that we may want to promote the practice of daily-committing developers reviewing other developers' commits; and (3) the bugginess of commits versus day-of-week varies for different software projects.