Cited by 51Software Engineering ResearchSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies

Characterizing and Understanding Development Sessions

Robbes, R., Lanza, M.·2007·15th IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC '07)

Abstract

The understanding of development sessions, the phases during which a developer actively modifies a software system, is a valuable asset for program comprehension, since the sessions directly impact the current state and future evolution of a software system. Such information is usually lost by state-of-the-art versioning systems, because of the checkin/checkout model they rely on: a developer must explicitly commit his changes to the repository. Since this happens in arbitrary and sometimes long intervals, recovering the changes between two commits is difficult and inaccurate, and recovering the order of the changes is impossible. We have implemented an evolution monitoring prototype which records every semantic change performed on a system, and is able to completely reconstruct development sessions. In this paper we use this fine-grained information to understand and characterize the development sessions as they were carried out on two object-oriented systems.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/icpc.2007.12

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Activity Theory models consider interruptions after ~3 minutes of sustained attention at action level and after ~12 minutes at activity level.

    “This study presented work fragmentation at two different levels: actions and activities.Interruptions originated after a period of around three minutes of sustained attention to the previous action were considered when people were switching at the level of interactions with artifacts of people.Interruptions originated after a period of twelve minutes of sustained attention to a previous activity w”

    From Work fragmentation in developer interaction data (2017) · cites this paper as [33]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Robbes, R., & Lanza, M.
Affiliations
Università della Svizzera italiana (CH)
Venue
15th IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC '07)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2007-06
Pages
155-166
OpenAlex
W2121459566
Cited by
51
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
FWCI
3.39
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC) (publishedVersion)
  • Open Research (University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Keywords
program comprehension, version control, object-oriented software, software evolution

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review