差一点:开源软件项目中的准贡献者研究

Igor Steinmacher, G. Pinto, I. Wiese, M. Gerosa
{"title":"差一点:开源软件项目中的准贡献者研究","authors":"Igor Steinmacher, G. Pinto, I. Wiese, M. Gerosa","doi":"10.1145/3180155.3180208","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent studies suggest that well-known OSS projects struggle to find the needed workforce to continue evolving—in part because external developers fail to overcome their first contribution barriers. In this paper, we investigate how and why quasi-contributors (external developers who did not succeed in getting their contributions accepted to an OSS project) fail. To achieve our goal, we collected data from 21 popular, non-trivial GitHub projects, identified quasi-contributors, and analyzed their pull-requests. In addition, we conducted surveys with quasi-contributors, and projects' integrators, to understand their perceptions about nonacceptance.We found 10,099 quasi-contributors — about 70% of the total actual contributors — that submitted 12,367 non-accepted pull-requests. In five projects, we found more quasi-contributors than actual contributors. About one-third of the developers who took our survey disagreed with the nonacceptance, and around 30% declared the nonacceptance demotivated or prevented them from placing another pull-request. The main reasons for pull-request nonacceptance from the quasi-contributors' perspective were \"superseded/duplicated pull-request\" and \"mismatch between developer's and team's vision/opinion.\" A manual analysis of a representative sample of 263 pull-requests corroborated with this finding. We also found reasons related to the relationship with the community and lack of experience or commitment from the quasi-contributors. This empirical study is particularly relevant to those interested in fostering developers' participation and retention in OSS communities.","PeriodicalId":6560,"journal":{"name":"2018 IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)","volume":"82 1","pages":"256-266"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"82","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Almost There: A Study on Quasi-Contributors in Open-Source Software Projects\",\"authors\":\"Igor Steinmacher, G. Pinto, I. Wiese, M. Gerosa\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3180155.3180208\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Recent studies suggest that well-known OSS projects struggle to find the needed workforce to continue evolving—in part because external developers fail to overcome their first contribution barriers. In this paper, we investigate how and why quasi-contributors (external developers who did not succeed in getting their contributions accepted to an OSS project) fail. To achieve our goal, we collected data from 21 popular, non-trivial GitHub projects, identified quasi-contributors, and analyzed their pull-requests. In addition, we conducted surveys with quasi-contributors, and projects' integrators, to understand their perceptions about nonacceptance.We found 10,099 quasi-contributors — about 70% of the total actual contributors — that submitted 12,367 non-accepted pull-requests. In five projects, we found more quasi-contributors than actual contributors. About one-third of the developers who took our survey disagreed with the nonacceptance, and around 30% declared the nonacceptance demotivated or prevented them from placing another pull-request. The main reasons for pull-request nonacceptance from the quasi-contributors' perspective were \\\"superseded/duplicated pull-request\\\" and \\\"mismatch between developer's and team's vision/opinion.\\\" A manual analysis of a representative sample of 263 pull-requests corroborated with this finding. We also found reasons related to the relationship with the community and lack of experience or commitment from the quasi-contributors. This empirical study is particularly relevant to those interested in fostering developers' participation and retention in OSS communities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":6560,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2018 IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)\",\"volume\":\"82 1\",\"pages\":\"256-266\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"82\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2018 IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3180155.3180208\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2018 IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3180155.3180208","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 82

摘要

最近的研究表明,知名的OSS项目很难找到所需的劳动力来继续发展——部分原因是外部开发人员未能克服他们的第一个贡献障碍。在本文中,我们调查了准贡献者(没有成功地让他们的贡献被OSS项目接受的外部开发人员)失败的方式和原因。为了实现我们的目标,我们从21个流行的、重要的GitHub项目中收集了数据,确定了准贡献者,并分析了他们的拉取请求。此外,我们对准贡献者和项目集成商进行了调查,以了解他们对不接受的看法。我们发现10,099个准贡献者(约占实际贡献者总数的70%)提交了12,367个未被接受的pull请求。在五个项目中,我们发现准贡献者多于实际贡献者。在接受我们调查的开发者中,约有三分之一的人不同意不接受游戏,约30%的人表示不接受游戏让他们失去了动力,或者阻止了他们提出下一个下拉请求。从准贡献者的角度来看,不接受拉取请求的主要原因是“取代/重复的拉取请求”和“开发人员和团队的愿景/意见之间的不匹配”。对263个撤回请求的代表性样本进行的人工分析证实了这一发现。我们还发现了与社区关系以及准贡献者缺乏经验或承诺有关的原因。这个实证研究特别与那些对促进开发人员参与和保留OSS社区感兴趣的人相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Almost There: A Study on Quasi-Contributors in Open-Source Software Projects
Recent studies suggest that well-known OSS projects struggle to find the needed workforce to continue evolving—in part because external developers fail to overcome their first contribution barriers. In this paper, we investigate how and why quasi-contributors (external developers who did not succeed in getting their contributions accepted to an OSS project) fail. To achieve our goal, we collected data from 21 popular, non-trivial GitHub projects, identified quasi-contributors, and analyzed their pull-requests. In addition, we conducted surveys with quasi-contributors, and projects' integrators, to understand their perceptions about nonacceptance.We found 10,099 quasi-contributors — about 70% of the total actual contributors — that submitted 12,367 non-accepted pull-requests. In five projects, we found more quasi-contributors than actual contributors. About one-third of the developers who took our survey disagreed with the nonacceptance, and around 30% declared the nonacceptance demotivated or prevented them from placing another pull-request. The main reasons for pull-request nonacceptance from the quasi-contributors' perspective were "superseded/duplicated pull-request" and "mismatch between developer's and team's vision/opinion." A manual analysis of a representative sample of 263 pull-requests corroborated with this finding. We also found reasons related to the relationship with the community and lack of experience or commitment from the quasi-contributors. This empirical study is particularly relevant to those interested in fostering developers' participation and retention in OSS communities.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Launch-Mode-Aware Context-Sensitive Activity Transition Analysis A Combinatorial Approach for Exposing Off-Nominal Behaviors Perses: Syntax-Guided Program Reduction Fine-Grained Test Minimization From UI Design Image to GUI Skeleton: A Neural Machine Translator to Bootstrap Mobile GUI Implementation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1