The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The secret life of bugs: Going past the errors and omissions in software repositories
Abstract
Every bug has a story behind it. The people that discover and resolve it need to coordinate, to get information from documents, tools, or other people, and to navigate through issues of accountability, ownership, and organizational structure. This paper reports on a field study of coordination activities around bug fixing that used a combination of case study research and a survey of software professionals. Results show that the histories of even simple bugs are strongly dependent on social, organizational, and technical knowledge that cannot be solely extracted through automation of electronic repositories, and that such automation provides incomplete and often erroneous accounts of coordination. The paper uses rich bug histories and survey results to identify common bug fixing coordination patterns and to provide implications for tool designers and researchers of coordination in software development.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hartley, J. (2004) · Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research · doi:10.4135/9781446280119.n26 · Cited by 15,461
Hutchins, E. (1995) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1881.001.0001 · Cited by 10,801 · cited 1×
“Our methodology was theoretically inspired in the focus on people, artifacts, and information flow of Hutchins' Distributed Cognition framework [12].”
MethodInformation Needs in Collocated Software Development Teams
Ko, A. J., DeLine, R., & Venolia, G. (2007) · 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'07) · doi:10.1109/icse.2007.45 · Cited by 499
Self-citationSplitting the organization and integrating the code: Conway's law revisited
Herbsleb, J. D., & Grinter, R. E. (1999) · Proceedings of the 21st international conference on Software engineering · doi:10.1145/302405.302455 · Cited by 425
People, organizations, and process improvement
Perry, D. E., Staudenmayer, N. A., & Votta, L. G. (1994) · IEEE Software · doi:10.1109/52.300082 · Cited by 401
Cited by
Towards a Theory of Software Developer Job Satisfaction and Perceived Productivity
Storey, M.-A., Zimmermann, T., Bird, C., Czerwonka, J., Murphy, B., & Kalliamvakou, E. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2019.2944354 · Cited by 90
An Empirical Study of Bugs in WebAssembly Compilers
Romano, A., Liu, X., Kwon, Y., & Wang, W. (2021) · 2021 36th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE) · doi:10.1109/ase51524.2021.9678776 · Cited by 49
What distinguishes great software engineers
Li, P. L., Ko, A. J., & Begel, A. (2020) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-019-09773-y · Cited by 48
Razzaq, A., Buckley, J., Lai, Q., Yu, T., & Botterweck, G. (2025) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3687299 · Cited by 36
Borg, M., Tornhill, A., & Mones, E. (2023) · Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3593434.3593480 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- Aranda, J., & Venolia, G.
- Venue
- 2009 IEEE 31st International Conference on Software Engineering
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2009
- Pages
- 298-308
- OpenAlex
- W2100196534
- Cited by
- 260
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 16.68
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The secret life of bugs: Going past the errors and omissions in software repositories. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/icse.2009.5070530
- The paper
- Aranda, J., & Venolia, G. (2009). The secret life of bugs: Going past the errors and omissions in software repositories. 2009 IEEE 31st International Conference on Software Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/icse.2009.5070530
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
