Advertisement

Leaving Behind the Software History When Transitioning to Open Source: Reasons and Implications

  • Gustavo Pinto
  • Igor Steinmacher
  • Marco Gerosa
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 525)

Abstract

Maintenance of software history is regarded to be one of the most relevant features of Version Control Systems (VCS) and is well-known to be indispensable for software developers. However, transitioning from proprietary to open source software poses a challenge: keeping the software history might make available years of historical records and internal matters from the company that built the software. On the other hand, removing the software history may disturb the development and may be harmful to new contributors. We conducted a survey with open source software projects that made this shift to investigate (1) the reasons why they removed the software history and (2) the challenges that developers face with the lack of availability of software history. Among the results, we found that the most common reason for removing the software history is because it is entangled with proprietary code (the fact that the history contains sensitive information appears next). Interestingly, most core developers believed that the lack of software history is, in the worst case, “a very minor inconvenience.”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank our respondents and the reviewers. This work is supported by CNPq #406308/2016-0; PROPESP/UFPA; and FAPESP #2015/24527-3.

References

  1. 1.
    Almeida, D.A., Murphy, G.C., Wilson, G., Hoye, M.: Do software developers understand open source licenses? In: ICPC 2017, pp. 1–11. IEEE Press (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Avelino, G., Passos, L., Hora, A., Valente, M.T.: A novel approach for estimating truck factors. In: ICPC 2016, pp. 1–10 (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bachmann, A., Bird, C., Rahman, F., Devanbu, P., Bernstein, A.: The missing links: bugs and bug-fix commits. In: FSE 2010, pp. 97–106 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Codoban, M., Ragavan, S.S., Dig, D., Bailey, B.: Software history under the lens: a study on why and how developers examine it. In: ICSME 2015, pp. 1–10 (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Oliveira, M.C., Bonifácio, R., Ramos, G.N., Ribeiro, M.: Unveiling and reasoning about co-change dependencies. In: Modularity 2016, pp. 25–36 (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Di Penta, M., German, D.M., Guéhéneuc, Y.-G., Antoniol, G.: An exploratory study of the evolution of software licensing. In: ICSE 2010, vol. 1, pp. 145–154. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dias, L.F., Steinmacher, I., Pinto, G.: Who drives company-owned OSS projects: Employees or volunteers? In: V Workshop on Software Visualization, Evolution and Maintenance, VEM, p. 10 (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fogel, K.: Producing Open Source Software: How to Run a Successful Free Software Project, 1st edn. O’Reilly Media, Sebastopol (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    German, D.M., Di Penta, M., Davies, J.: Understanding and auditing the licensing of open source software distributions. In: ICPC 2010, pp. 84–93. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kalliamvakou, E., Damian, D., Blincoe, K., Singer, L., German, D.M.: Open source-style collaborative development practices in commercial projects using GitHub. In: ICSE 2015, pp. 574–585 (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kuttal, S.K., Sarma, A., Rothermel, G.: On the benefits of providing versioning support for end users: an empirical study. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 21(2), 9:1–9:43 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marlow, J., Dabbish, L., Herbsleb, J.: Impression formation in online peer production: activity traces and personal profiles in GitHub. In: CSCW (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meloca, R.M., Pinto, G., Baiser, L.P., Mattos, M., Polato, I., Wiese, I.S., German, D.M.: A study of non-approved open-source licenses. In: MSR 2018. IEEE Press (2018)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pham, R., Singer, L., Liskin, O., Filho, F.F., Schneider, K.: Creating a shared understanding of testing culture on a social coding site. In: ICSE 2013, pp. 112–121 (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pinto, G., Dias, L.F., Steinmacher, I.: Who gets a patch accepted first? comparing the contributions of employees and volunteers. In: 2018 11th IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering, CHASE@ICSE 2018, Gothenburg, Sweden, May 2018Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pinto, G., Steinmacher, I., Dias, L.F., Gerosa, M.: On the challenges of open-sourcing proprietary software projects. Empir. Softw. Eng. 1–27 (2018)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pinto, G., Steinmacher, I., Gerosa, M.A.: More common than you think: an in-depth study of casual contributors. In: SANER 2016, pp. 112–123 (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Riehle, D., Ellenberger, J., Menahem, T., Mikhailovski, B., Natchetoi, Y., Naveh, B., Odenwald, T.: Open collaboration within corporations using software forges. IEEE Softw. 26(2), 52–58 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sharma, S., Sugumaran, V., Rajagopalan, B.: A framework for creating hybrid-open source software communities. Inf. Syst. J. 12(1), 7–26 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Steff, M., Russo, B.: Co-evolution of logical couplings and commits for defect estimation. In: MSR 2012, pp. 213–216 (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Steinmacher, I., Pinto, G., Wiese, I., Gerosa, M.A.: Almost there: a study on quasi-contributors in open-source software projects. In: ICSE 2018 (2018)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Strauss, A., Corbin, J.M.: Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 3rd edn. SAGE, Thousand Oaks (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tao, Y., Dang, Y., Xie, T., Zhang, D., Kim, S.: How do software engineers understand code changes?: An exploratory study in industry. In: FSE 2012, pp. 51:1–51:11 (2012)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tsay, J., Dabbish, L., Herbsleb, J.: Influence of social and technical factors for evaluating contribution in GitHub. In: ICSE 2014, pp. 356–366 (2014)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vendome, C., Bavota, G., Di Penta, M., Linares-Vásquez, M., German, D., Poshyvanyk, D.: License usage and changes: a large-scale study on github. Empir Softw. Eng. 22(3), 1–41 (2017)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vendome, C., Linares-Vásquez, M., Bavota, G., Di Penta, M., German, D., Poshyvanyk, D.: Machine learning-based detection of open source license exceptions. In: ICSE 2017, pp. 118–129 (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gustavo Pinto
    • 1
  • Igor Steinmacher
    • 2
    • 3
  • Marco Gerosa
    • 3
  1. 1.Federal University of ParáBelémBrazil
  2. 2.Federal University of TechnologyCampo MourãoBrazil
  3. 3.Northern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper

Buy options