The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Coping with an open bug repository
Abstract
Most open source software development projects include an open bug repository---one to which users of the software can gain full access---that is used to report and track problems with, and potential enhancements to, the software system. There are several potential advantages to the use of an open bug repository: more problems with the system might be identified because of the relative ease of reporting bugs, more problems might be fixed because more developers might engage in problem solving, and developers and users can engage in focused conversations about the bugs, allowing users input into the direction of the system. However, there are also some potential disadvantages such as the possibility that developers must process irrelevant bugs that reduce their productivity. Despite the rise in use of open bug repositories, there is little data about what is stored inside these repositories and how they are used. In this paper, we provide an initial characterization of two open bug repositories from the Eclipse and Firefox projects, describe the duplicate bug and bug triage problems that arise with these open bug repositories, and discuss how we are applying machine learning technology to help automate these processes.
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
The social structure of free and open source software development
Crowston, K., & Howison, J. (2005) · First Monday · doi:10.5210/fm.v10i2.1207 · Cited by 474
Cited by
GenProg: A Generic Method for Automatic Software Repair
Le Goues, C., Nguyen, T., Forrest, S., & Weimer, W. (2012) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2011.104 · Cited by 1,085
How Long Will It Take to Fix This Bug?
Weiss, C., Premraj, R., Zimmermann, T., & Zeller, A. (2007) · Fourth International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories (MSR'07:ICSE Workshops 2007) · doi:10.1109/msr.2007.13 · Cited by 375
HYDRA: Massively Compositional Model for Cross-Project Defect Prediction
Xia, X., Lo, D., Pan, S. J., Nagappan, N., & Wang, X. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2016.2543218 · Cited by 293
Metadata
- Authors
- Anvik, J., Hiew, L., & Murphy, G. C.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2005 OOPSLA workshop on Eclipse technology eXchange - eclipse '05
- Publisher
- ACM Press
- Published
- 2005
- Pages
- 35-39
- OpenAlex
- W2006700268
- Cited by
- 252
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 3.11
- 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: Coping with an open bug repository. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/1117696.1117704
- The paper
- Anvik, J., Hiew, L., & Murphy, G. C. (2005). Coping with an open bug repository. Proceedings of the 2005 OOPSLA workshop on Eclipse technology eXchange - eclipse '05. https://doi.org/10.1145/1117696.1117704
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.
