Cited by 406Software Engineering Techniques and PracticesSoftware Engineering ResearchOpen Source Software Innovations

Quality and productivity outcomes relating to continuous integration in GitHub

Vasilescu, Bogdan, Yu, Yue, Wang, Huaimin, Devanbu, Premkumar, Filkov, Vladimir·2015·Proceedings of the 2015 10th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering

Abstract

Software processes comprise many steps; coding is followed by building, integration testing, system testing, deployment, operations, among others. Software process integration and automation have been areas of key concern in software engineering, ever since the pioneering work of Osterweil; market pressures for Agility, and open, decentralized, software development have provided additional pressures for progress in this area. But do these innovations actually help projects? Given the numerous confounding factors that can influence project performance, it can be a challenge to discern the effects of process integration and automation. Software project ecosystems such as GitHub provide a new opportunity in this regard: one can readily find large numbers of projects in various stages of process integration and automation, and gather data on various influencing factors as well as productivity and quality outcomes. In this paper we use large, historical data on process metrics and outcomes in GitHub projects to discern the effects of one specific innovation in process automation: continuous integration. Our main finding is that continuous integration improves the productivity of project teams, who can integrate more outside contributions, without an observable diminishment in code quality.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2786805.2786850

Cites

1 of 1 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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vasilescu, B., Yu, Y., Wang, H., Devanbu, P., & Filkov, V.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • National University of Defense Technology (CN)
  • University of California at Davis, USA
Venue
Proceedings of the 2015 10th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering
Publisher
ACM
Published
2015-08-30
Pages
805-816
OpenAlex
W2040915209
Cited by
406
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 51 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 14
FWCI
24.23
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 Science Foundation (1247280, 1414172)
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (61432020, 61472430)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
Keywords
continuous integration, software process automation, software quality, software productivity, GitHub, open source software, code quality, integration testing

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