Advertisement

Evaluating Process Quality Based on Change Request Data – An Empirical Study of the Eclipse Project

  • Holger Schackmann
  • Henning Schaefer
  • Horst Lichter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5891)

Abstract

The information routinely collected in change request management systems contains valuable information for monitoring of the process quality. However this data is currently utilized in a very limited way. This paper presents an empirical study of the process quality in the product portfolio of the Eclipse project. It is based on a systematic approach for the evaluation of process quality characteristics using change request data. Results of the study offer insights into the development process of Eclipse. Moreover the study allows assessing applicability and limitations of the proposed approach for the evaluation of process quality.

Keywords

Process Metrics Open Source Development Change Request Management Process Improvement Metric Specification Mining Software Repositories 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cook, J.E., Votta, L.G., Wolf, A.L.: Cost-Effective Analysis of In-Place Software Processes. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 24(8), 650–663 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grammel, L., Schackmann, H., Lichter, H.: BugzillaMetrics: An Adaptable Tool for Evaluating Metric Specifications on Change Requests. In: Ninth Intl. Workshop on Principles of Software Evolution, IWPSE 2007, Dubrovnik, Croatia, September 3-4, pp. 35–38. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ebert, C., Dumke, R.: Software Measurement. Establish – Extract – Evaluate - Execute. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kanat-Alexander, M.: The Bugzilla Survey (August 2008), http://wiki.mozilla.org/Bugzilla:Survey
  5. 5.
    Schackmann, H., Lichter, H.: Comparison of Process Quality Characteristics Based on Change Request Data. In: Dumke, R.R., Braungarten, R., Büren, G., Abran, A., Cuadrado-Gallego, J.J. (eds.) IWSM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5338, pp. 127–140. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kagdi, H., Collard, M.L., Maletic, J.I.: A Survey and Taxonomy of Approaches for Mining Software Repositories in the Context of Software Evolution. J. Softw. Maint. Evol. 19(2), 77–131 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Breu, S., Zimmermann, T., Lindig, C.: HAM: Cross-Cutting Concerns in Eclipse. In: Proc. of the 2006 OOPSLA Workshop on Eclipse Technology Exchange, Portland, Oregon, October 22-23, pp. 21–24. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hou, D.: Studying the Evolution of the Eclipse Java Editor. In: Proc. of the 2007 OOPSLA Workshop on Eclipse Technology Exchange, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, October 21, pp. 65–69. ACM, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wermelinger, M., Yu, Y.: Analyzing the Evolution of Eclipse Plugins. In: Proc. of the 2008 Intl. Working Conf. on Mining Software Repositories, Leipzig, Germany, May 10-11, pp. 133–136. ACM, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kidane, Y., Gloor, P.: Correlating Temporal Communication Patterns of the Eclipse Open Source Community with Performance and Creativity. In: Proc. of NAACSOS 2005, Notre Dame, Indiana, June 26-28 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Linstead, E., Rigor, P., Bajracharya, S., Lopes, C., Baldi, P.: Mining Eclipse Developer Contributions via Author-Topic Models. In: Proc. of the Fourth Intl. Workshop on Mining Software Repositories, Minneapolis, MN, May 19-20, p. 30. IEEE, Washington (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Herraiz, I., Gonzalez-Barahona, J.M., Robles, G.: Forecasting the Number of Changes in Eclipse Using Time Series Analysis. In: Proc. of the Fourth Intl. Workshop on Mining Software Repositories, Minneapolis, MN, May 19-20, p. 32. IEEE, Washington (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhang, H.: An Initial Study of the Growth of Eclipse Defects. In: Proc. of the 2008 Intl. Working Conf. on Mining Software Repositories, Leipzig, Germany, May 10-11, pp. 141–144. ACM, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Panjer, L.D.: Predicting Eclipse Bug Lifetimes. In: Proc. of the Fourth Intl. Workshop on Mining Software Repositories, Minneapolis, MN, May 19-20, p. 29. IEEE, Washington (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schuler, D., Zimmermann, T.: Mining Usage Expertise from Version Archives. In: Proc. of the 2008 Intl. Working Conf. on Mining Software Repositories, Leipzig, Germany, May 10-11, pp. 121–124. ACM, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mockus, A., Fielding, R.T., Herbsleb, J.D.: Two Case Studies of Open Source Software Development: Apache and Mozilla. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 11(3), 309–346 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Francalanci, C., Merlo, F.: Empirical Analysis of the Bug Fixing Process in Open Source Projects. In: Open Source Development, Communities and Quality, pp. 187–196. Springer, Boston (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Michlmayr, M., Senyard, A.: A Statistical Analysis of Defects in Debian and Strategies for Improving Quality in Free Software Projects. In: Bitzer, J., Schröder, P.J.H. (eds.) The Economics of Open Source Software Development, pp. 131–148. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Śliwerski, J., Zimmermann, T., Zeller, A.: When Do Changes Induce Fixes? In: Proc. of the 2005 Intl. Workshop on Mining Software Repositories, St. Louis, Missouri, May 17, pp. 1–5. ACM, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Koponen, T.: RaSOSS - Remote Analysis System for Open Source Software. In: Proc. of the Intl. Conf. on Software Eng. Advances, Papeete, Tahiti, French Polynesia, October 29 – November 3, pp. 54–59. IEEE, Washington (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Herraiz, I., German, D.M., Gonzalez-Barahona, J.M., Robles, G.: Towards a Simplification of the Bug Report Form in Eclipse. In: Proc. of the 2008 Intl. Working Conf. on Mining Software Repositories, Leipzig, Germany, May 10-11, pp. 145–148. ACM, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bettenburg, N., Just, S., Schröter, A., Weiss, C., Premraj, R., Zimmermann, T.: What Makes a Good Bug Report? In: Proc. of the 16th ACM SIGSOFT Intl. Symp. on Foundations of Software Engineering, Atlanta, Georgia, November 9-14, pp. 308–318. ACM, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gamma, E.: Agile, Open Source, Distributed, and On-Time – Inside the Eclipse Development Process. In: Keynote Talk, 27th Intl. Conf. on Software Engineering, St. Louis, Missouri, May 15-21 (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schackmann, H., Jansen, M., Lischkowitz, C., Lichter, H.: QMetric - A Metric Tool Suite for the Evaluation of Software Process Data. In: Companion Proc. of the 31th Intl. Conf. on Software Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, May 16-22, pp. 415–416. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Samoladas, I., Gousios, G., Spinellis, D., Stamelos, I.: The SQO-OSS Quality Model: Measurement Based Open Source Software Evaluation. In: Open Source Development, Communities and Quality, Milano, Italy, September 7-10. IFIP, vol. 275, pp. 237–248. Springer, Boston (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ciolkowski, M., Soto, M.: Towards a Comprehensive Approach for Assessing Open Source Projects. In: Dumke, R.R., Braungarten, R., Büren, G., Abran, A., Cuadrado-Gallego, J.J. (eds.) IWSM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5338, pp. 316–330. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Holger Schackmann
    • 1
  • Henning Schaefer
    • 1
  • Horst Lichter
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Group Software ConstructionRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations