The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Version models for software configuration management
Open accessAbstract
After more than 20 years of research and practice in software configuration management (SCM), constructing consistent configurations of versioned software products still remains a challenge. This article focuses on the version models underlying both commercial systems and research prototypes. It provides an overview and classification of different versioning paradigms and defines and relates fundamental concepts such as revisions, variants, configurations, and changes. In particular, we focus on intensional versioning, that is, construction of versions based on configuration rules. Finally, we provide an overview of systems that have had significant impact on the development of the SCM discipline and classify them according to a detailed taxonomy.
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
Cited by
Toward reference models for requirements traceability
Ramesh, B., & Jarke, M. (2001) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/32.895989 · Cited by 912
How Program History Can Improve Code Completion
Robbes, R., & Lanza, M. (2008) · 2008 23rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/ase.2008.42 · Cited by 155
Improving code completion with program history
Robbes, R., & Lanza, M. (2010) · Automated Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10515-010-0064-x · Cited by 95
Early Detection of Collaboration Conflicts and Risks
Brun, Y., Holmes, R., Ernst, M. D., & Notkin, D. (2013) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2013.28 · Cited by 82
Requirements Engineering: Best Practice
Fricker, S. A., Grau, R., & Zwingli, A. (2015) · Requirements Engineering for Digital Health · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-09798-5_2 · Cited by 61
Metadata
- Authors
- Conradi, R., & Westfechtel, B.
- Venue
- ACM Computing Surveys
- Published
- 1998-06
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 232-282
- ISSN
- 0360-0300 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7341
- OpenAlex
- W2001907377
- Cited by
- 586
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 63.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
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.
