Broadcast vs. Unicast Review Technology: Does It Matter?

2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST) Pub Date : 2017-03-13 DOI:10.1109/ICST.2017.27

Foundjem Armstrong, Foutse Khomh, Bram Adams

{"title":"Broadcast vs. Unicast Review Technology: Does It Matter?","authors":"Foundjem Armstrong, Foutse Khomh, Bram Adams","doi":"10.1109/ICST.2017.27","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Code review is the process of having other team members examine changes to a software system in order to evaluate their technical content and quality. Over the years, multiple tools have been proposed to help software developers conduct and manage code reviews. Some software organizations have been migrating from broadcast review technology to a more advanced unicast review approach such as Jira, but it is unclear if these unicast review technology leads to better code reviews. This paper empirically studies review data of five Apache projects that switched from broadcast based code review to unicast based, to understand the impact of review technology on review effectiveness and quality. Results suggest that broadcast based review is twice faster than review done with unicast based review technology. However, unicast's review quality seems to be better than that of the broadcast based. Our findings suggest that the medium (i.e., broadcast or unicast) technology used for code reviews can relate to the effectiveness and quality of reviews activities.","PeriodicalId":112258,"journal":{"name":"2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST)","volume":"48 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICST.2017.27","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 15

Abstract

Code review is the process of having other team members examine changes to a software system in order to evaluate their technical content and quality. Over the years, multiple tools have been proposed to help software developers conduct and manage code reviews. Some software organizations have been migrating from broadcast review technology to a more advanced unicast review approach such as Jira, but it is unclear if these unicast review technology leads to better code reviews. This paper empirically studies review data of five Apache projects that switched from broadcast based code review to unicast based, to understand the impact of review technology on review effectiveness and quality. Results suggest that broadcast based review is twice faster than review done with unicast based review technology. However, unicast's review quality seems to be better than that of the broadcast based. Our findings suggest that the medium (i.e., broadcast or unicast) technology used for code reviews can relate to the effectiveness and quality of reviews activities.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

广播与单播评论技术:重要吗?

代码审查是让其他团队成员检查对软件系统的更改，以评估其技术内容和质量的过程。多年来，已经提出了多种工具来帮助软件开发人员进行和管理代码审查。一些软件组织已经从广播评审技术迁移到更先进的单播评审方法，比如Jira，但是这些单播评审技术是否会带来更好的代码评审还不清楚。本文实证研究了五个Apache项目从基于广播的代码审查转向基于单播的代码审查的审查数据，以了解审查技术对审查有效性和质量的影响。结果表明，基于广播的审查比基于单播的审查快两倍。然而，单播的评论质量似乎比基于广播的要好。我们的发现表明，用于代码审查的媒介(例如，广播或单播)技术可以与审查活动的有效性和质量相关。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST)

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊最新文献

The Theory of Composite Faults Symbolic Complexity Analysis Using Context-Preserving Histories Using Delta Debugging to Minimize Stress Tests for Concurrent Data Structures Private API Access and Functional Mocking in Automated Unit Test Generation Automata Language Equivalence vs. Simulations for Model-Based Mutant Equivalence: An Empirical Evaluation