The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Small patches get in!
Abstract
While there is a considerable amount of research on analyzing the change information stored in software repositories, only few researcher have looked at software changes contained in email archives in form of patches. In this paper we look at the email archives of two open source projects and answer questions like the following: How many emails contain patches? How long does it take for a patch to be accepted? Does the size of the patch influence its chances to be accepted or the duration until it gets accepted? Obviously, the answers to these questions can be helpful for the authors of patches, in particular because some of the answers are surprising.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Large PRs increase reviewer cognitive load and raise the risk of rejection, as previous studies [42] have warned developers for decades.”
From On the Use of Agentic Coding: An Empirical Study of Pull Requests on GitHub (2026) · cites this paper as [42]
Citations
Cites
Bird, C., Gourley, A., Devanbu, P., Gertz, M., & Swaminathan, A. (2006) · Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Mining software repositories · doi:10.1145/1137983.1138016 · Cited by 552
Socialization in an Open Source Software Community: A Socio-Technical Analysis
DUCHENEAUT, N. (2005) · Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1007/s10606-005-9000-1 · Cited by 448
Detecting Patch Submission and Acceptance in OSS Projects
Bird, C., Gourley, A., & Devanbu, P. T. (2007) · IEEE Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories · doi:10.1109/msr.2007.6 · Cited by 87
Patch Review Processes in Open Source Software Development Communities: A Comparative Case Study
Asundi, J., & Jayant, R. (2007) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · doi:10.1109/hicss.2007.426 · Cited by 67
Visual Data Mining in Software Archives to Detect How Developers Work Together
Weißgerber, P., Pohl, M., & Burch, M. (2007) · doi:10.1109/msr.2007.34 · Cited by 30
Self-citation
Cited by
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
Code review quality: how developers see it
Kononenko, O., Baysal, O., & Godfrey, M. W. (2016) · Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/2884781.2884840 · Cited by 183
Predicting Design Impactful Changes in Modern Code Review: A Large-Scale Empirical Study
Uchoa, A., Barbosa, C., Coutinho, D., Oizumi, W., Assuncao, W. K. G., Vergilio, S. R., Pereira, J. A., Oliveira, A., & Garcia, A. (2021) · 2021 IEEE/ACM 18th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR) · doi:10.1109/msr52588.2021.00059 · Cited by 42
On the Use of Agentic Coding: An Empirical Study of Pull Requests on GitHub
Watanabe, M., Li, H., Kashiwa, Y., Reid, B., Iida, H., & Hassan, A. E. (2026) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3798166 · Cited by 34
How open source is changing the software developer's career
Riehle, D. (2015) · Computer · doi:10.1109/mc.2015.132 · Cited by 34
Metadata
- Authors
- Weißgerber, P., Neu, D., & Diehl, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Trier, Trier, Germany
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2008 international working conference on Mining software repositories
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2008-05-10
- Pages
- 67-76
- Cited by
- 90
- References
- 5
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: Small patches get in! https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/1370750.1370767
- The paper
- Weißgerber, P., Neu, D., & Diehl, S. (2008). Small patches get in! Proceedings of the 2008 international working conference on Mining software repositories. https://doi.org/10.1145/1370750.1370767
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.
