In any sufficiently complex software system there are experts, having a deeper understanding of parts of the system than others. However, it is not always clear who these experts are and which particular parts of the system they can provide help with. We propose a framework to elicit the expertise of developers and recommend experts by analyzing complexity measures over time. Furthermore, teams can detect those parts of the software for which currently no, or only few experts exist and take preventive actions to keep the collective code knowledge and ownership high. We employed the developed approach at a medium-sized company. The results were evaluated with a survey, comparing the perceived and the computed expertise of developers. We show that aggregated code metrics can be used to identify experts for different software components. The identified experts were rated as acceptable candidates by developers in over 90 of all cases.
Code ownership describes the approach of assigning source code or entire software systems to their human owners. these models can range all the way from a single , managing all the code to , where responsibilities are shared amongst all developers @cite_20 .
@cite_20
2143177027 2014329956 2145574830 2374812233
In a traditional sense, ownership determines rights and duties in regard to an object, for example a property. The owner of source code usually refers to the person that invented the code. However, larger code artifacts, such as files, are usually composed by multiple engineers contributing to the entity over time through a series of changes. Frequently, the person with the highest contribution, e.g. the most number of code changes, is defined as the code owner and takes responsibility for it. Thus, code ownership relates to the knowledge engineers have about code. Lacking responsibility and knowledge about code can reduce code quality. In an earlier study, [1] showed that Windows binaries that lacked clear code ownership were more likely to be defect prone. However recommendations for large artifacts such as binaries are usually not actionable. E.g. changing the concept of binaries and refactoring them to ensure strong ownership would violate system architecture principles. A recent replication study by [2] on open source software replicate the original results and lead to doubts about the general concept of ownership impacting code quality. In this paper, we replicated and extended the previous two ownership studies [1, 2] and reflect on their findings. Further, we define several new ownership metrics to investigate the dependency between ownership and code quality on file and directory level for 4 major Microsoft products. The results confirm the original findings by [1] that code ownership correlates with code quality. Using new and refined code ownership metrics we were able to classify source files that contained at least one bug with a median precision of 0.74 and a median recall of 0.38. On directory level, we achieve a precision of 0.76 and a recall of 0.60. Solving the problem of failed project ownership is not merely a process of assigning developers to subsystems. This article describes four code ownership models, ranging from one individual owning an entire system to the collective ownership that is a core extreme programming practice. No single code ownership model is best. In fact, many projects would benefit from dynamically adjusting the ownership model over time as development progresses through, for example, the four phases of the unified process. Ownership is a key aspect of large-scale software development. We examine the relationship between different ownership measures and software failures in two large software projects: Windows Vista and Windows 7. We find that in all cases, measures of ownership such as the number of low-expertise developers, and the proportion of ownership for the top owner have a relationship with both pre-release faults and post-release failures. We also empirically identify reasons that low-expertise developers make changes to components and show that the removal of low-expertise contributions dramatically decreases the performance of contribution based defect prediction. Finally we provide recommendations for source code change policies and utilization of resources such as code inspections based on our results. Code ownership establishes a chain of responsibility for modules in large software systems. Although prior work uncovers a link between code ownership heuristics and software quality, these heuristics rely solely on the authorship of code changes. In addition to authoring code changes, developers also make important contributions to a module by reviewing code changes. Indeed, recent work shows that reviewers are highly active in modern code review processes, often suggesting alternative solutions or providing updates to the code changes. In this paper, we complement traditional code ownership heuristics using code review activity. Through a case study of six releases of the large Qt and OpenStack systems, we find that: (1) 67 --86 of developers did not author any code changes for a module, but still actively contributed by reviewing 21 --39 of the code changes, (2) code ownership heuristics that are aware of reviewing activity share a relationship with software quality, and (3) the proportion of reviewers without expertise shares a strong, increasing relationship with the likelihood of having post-release defects. Our results suggest that reviewing activity captures an important aspect of code ownership, and should be included in approximations of it in future studies.