Cited by 27Software Engineering ResearchOpen Source Software InnovationsSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices

Focus-shifting patterns of OSS developers and their congruence with call graphs

Xuan, Qi, Okano, Aaron, Devanbu, Premkumar, Filkov, Vladimir·2014·Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering

Abstract

Developers in complex, self-organized open-source projects often work on many different files, and over time switch focus between them. Shifting focus can have impact on the software quality and productivity, and is thus an important topic of investigation. In this paper, we study focus shifting patterns (FSPs) of developers by comparing trace data from a dozen open source software (OSS) projects of their longitudinal commit activities and file dependencies from the projects call graphs. Using information theoretic measures of network structure, we find that fairly complex focus-shifting patterns emerge, and FSPs in the same project are more similar to each other. We show that developers tend to shift focus along with, rather than away from, software dependency links described by the call graphs. This tendency becomes weaker as either the interval between successive commits, or the organizational distance between committed files (i.e. directory distance), gets larger. Interestingly, this tendency appears stronger with more productive developers. We hope our study will initiate interest in further understanding of FSPs, which can ultimately help to (1) improve current recommender systems to predict the next focus of developers, and (2) provide insight into better call graph design, so as to facilitate developers' work.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2635868.2635914

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Xuan, Q., Okano, A., Devanbu, P., & Filkov, V.
Affiliations
  • Zhejiang University of Technology (CN)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • University of California at Davis, USA
Venue
Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering
Publisher
ACM
Published
2014-11-11
Pages
401-412
OpenAlex
W1992375688
Cited by
27
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2
FWCI
3.41
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE) (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China
  • China Scholarship Council
  • Air Force Office of Scientific Research
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
open source software, call graph, developer behavior, commit activity, developer productivity, organizational distance, recommender systems

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