The promises and perils of mining git
Open accessAbstract
We are now witnessing the rapid growth of decentralized source code management (DSCM) systems, in which every developer has her own repository. DSCMs facilitate a style of collaboration in which work output can flow sideways (and privately) between collaborators, rather than always up and down (and publicly) via a central repository. Decentralization comes with both the promise of new data and the peril of its misinterpretation. We focus on git, a very popular DSCM used in high-profile projects. Decentralization, and other features of git, such as automatically recorded contributor attribution, lead to richer content histories, giving rise to new questions such as ldquoHow do contributions flow between developers to the official project repository?rdquo However, there are pitfalls. Commits may be reordered, deleted, or edited as they move between repositories. The semantics of terms common to SCMs and DSCMs sometimes differ markedly, potentially creating confusion. For example, a commit is immediately visible to all developers in centralized SCMs, but not in DSCMs. Our goal is to help researchers interested in DSCMs avoid these and other perils when mining and analyzing git data.
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
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.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
An exploratory study of the pull-based software development model
Gousios, G., Pinzger, M., & Deursen, A. V. (2014) · Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/2568225.2568260 · Cited by 628 · see citing works
Episodic volunteering in open source communities
Barcomb, A. (2016) · Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/2915970.2915972 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
AgenticFlict: A Large-Scale Dataset of Merge Conflicts in AI Coding Agent Pull Requests on GitHub
Ogenrwot, D., & Businge, J. (2026) · Proceedings of the 3rd ACM International Conference on AI-Powered Software · doi:10.1145/3805760.3814923
“Certain merge simulation failures may arise when repositories have been deleted or historical commits are no longer reachable due to force-pushes or history rewrites [5, 9, 45].”
- Authors
- Bird, C., Rigby, P. C., Barr, E. T., Hamilton, D. J., German, D. M., & Devanbu, P.
- Affiliations
- University of California San Diego (US)
- University of Victoria (CA)
- Venue
- 2009 6th IEEE International Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2009-05
- Pages
- 1-10
- OpenAlex
- W3144106047
- Cited by
- 311
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 8.12
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- zenodo.org
- Licence
- public-domain
- Locations
- International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR) (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Keywords
- Git, commit history, software repository mining, collaborative software development
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