The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Studying pull request merges: a case study of shopify's active merchant
Abstract
Pull-based development has become a popular choice for developing distributed projects, such as those hosted on GitHub. In this model, contributions are pulled from forked repositories, modified, and then later merged back into the main repository. In this work, we report on two empirical studies that investigate pull request (PR) merges of Active Merchant, a commercial project developed by Shopify Inc. In the first study, we apply data mining techniques on the project's GitHub repository to explore the nature of merges, and we conduct a manual inspection of pull requests; we also investigate what factors contribute to PR merge time and outcome. In the second study, we perform a qualitative analysis of the results of a survey of developers who contributed to Active Merchant. The study addresses the topic of PR review quality and developers' perception of it. The results provide insights into how these developers perform pull request merges, and what factors they find contribute to how they review and merge pull requests.
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
“Thus, merged PRs reflect successful code changes eventually incorporated into the OSS projects and are commonly used in the literature to assess meaningful contributions by developers (Gousios et al. 2014, Kononenko et al. 2018).”
From The Impact of Generative AI on Collaborative Open-Source Software Development: Evidence from GitHub Copilot (2024) · cites this paper as Kononenko et al. 2018
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 28
- 10.5555/2486788.2486882 · DOI
- 10.1109/WCRE.2012.54 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10664-015-9366-8 · DOI
- 10.1109/MSR.2007.23 · DOI
- 10.1109/TSE.2009.42 · DOI
- John Fox and Sanford Weisberg . 2011. An R Companion to Applied Regression ( second ed.). John Fox and Sanford Weisberg. 2011. An R Companion to Applied Regression (second ed.).
- 10.1145/2568225.2568260 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/2884781.2884826 · DOI
- 10.5555/2818754.2818800 · DOI
- R.M. Groves F.J. Fowler M.P. Couper J.M. Lepkowski E. Singer and R. Tourangeau. 2009. Survey Methodology (2 ed.). R.M. Groves F.J. Fowler M.P. Couper J.M. Lepkowski E. Singer and R. Tourangeau. 2009. Survey Methodology (2 ed.).
- Trevor Hastie Robert Tibshirani and Jerome Friedman. 2009. The elements of statistical learning: data mining inference and prediction (2 ed.). Trevor Hastie Robert Tibshirani and Jerome Friedman. 2009. The elements of statistical learning: data mining inference and prediction (2 ed.). · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/MS.2008.100 · DOI
- Yujuan Jiang , Bram Adams , and Daniel M. German . 2013. Will My Patch Make It? And How Fast?: Case Study on the Linux Kernel . In Proc. of Working Conf. on Mining Soft. Repos. 101--110 . Yujuan Jiang, Bram Adams, and Daniel M. German. 2013. Will My Patch Make It? And How Fast?: Case Study on the Linux Kernel. In Proc. of Working Conf. on Mining Soft. Repos. 101--110.
- 10.1145/2597073.2597074 · DOI
- 10.1109/TSE.2009.27 · DOI
- 10.1145/2884781.2884840 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/ICSM.2015.7332457 · DOI
- 10.1080/01621459.1952.10483441 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/2441776.2441792 · DOI
- 10.1145/2597073.2597076 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10664-015-9381-9 · DOI
- 10.1145/1882291.1882311 · DOI
- 10.1145/567793.567795 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/2491411.2491444 · DOI
- 10.1145/1985793.1985867 · DOI
- 10.1198/tast.2009.08210 · DOI
- 10.1145/2568225.2568315 · DOI
- 10.1145/1370750.1370767 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Song, F., Agarwal, A., & Wen, W. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal (preprint) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4856935 · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Kononenko, O., Rose, T., Baysal, O., Godfrey, M., Theisen, D., & de Water, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Waterloo (CA)
- Carleton University (CA)
- Shopify Inc., Canada
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2018-05-27
- Pages
- 124-133
- OpenAlex
- W2807825607
- Cited by
- 68
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8
- FWCI
- 4.28
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice (ICSE-SEIP) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
- Keywords
- pull-based development, pull request review, developer perceptions, Shopify, GitHub, distributed software development
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
