Abstract
Software products evolve increasingly fast as markets continuously demand new features and agility to customer’s need. This evolution of products triggers an evolution of software development practices in a different way. Compared to classical methods, where products were developed in projects, contemporary methods for continuous integration, delivery, and deployment develop products as part of continuous programs. In this context, software architects, designers, and quality engineers need to understand how the processes evolve over time since there is no natural start and stop of projects. For example, they need to know how similar two iterations of the same program or how similar two development programs are. In this paper, we compare three methods for calculating the degree of similarity between projects by comparing their Git commit series. We test three approaches—the DNA-motifs-inspired SimSAX measure and clustering of subsequences (k-Means and Hierarchical clustering). Our results show that the clustering algorithms are much more sensitive to parameters and often find similarities that are not correct. SimSAX, on the other hand, can be calibrated to find fewer similarities between the projects; the similarities are also more consistent for SimSAX than they are for the clustering. We conclude that it is better to use DNA-inspired motifs as they provide more accurate results.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The SimSAX tool—https://github.com/mochodek/simsax.
- 2.
More information about calibrating SimSAX\(_{n,w,a}\)(A, B) can be found in [14].
References
van der Aalst, W.M.P., de Medeiros, A.K.A., Weijters, A.J.M.M.: Process equivalence: comparing two process models based on observed behavior. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 129–144. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11841760_10
Aghabozorgi, S., Shirkhorshidi, A.S., Wah, T.Y.: Time-series clustering-a decade review. Inf. Syst. 53, 16–38 (2015)
Bardsiri, V.K., Jawawi, D.N.A., Hashim, S.Z.M., Khatibi, E.: Increasing the accuracy of software development effort estimation using projects clustering. IET Softw. 6(6), 461–473 (2012)
Bosch, J.: Continuous Software Engineering. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11283-1
Bosch, J.: Speed, data, and ecosystems: the future of software engineering. IEEE Softw. 33(1), 82–88 (2016)
Hindle, A., German, D.M., Holt, R.: What do large commits tell us?: a taxonomical study of large commits. In: Proceedings of the 2008 International Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories, pp. 99–108. ACM (2008)
Jones, E., Oliphant, T., Peterson, P., et al.: SciPy: Open source scientific tools for Python (2001). http://www.scipy.org/. Accessed 12 Mar 2018
Keogh, E., Ratanamahatana, C.A.: Exact indexing of dynamic time warping. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 7(3), 358–386 (2004)
Keogh, E.J., Pazzani, M.J.: A simple dimensionality reduction technique for fast similarity search in large time series databases. In: Terano, T., Liu, H., Chen, A.L.P. (eds.) PAKDD 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1805, pp. 122–133. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45571-X_14
Liao, T.W.: Clustering of time series data a survey. Pattern Recogn. 38(11), 1857–1874 (2005)
Lin, J., Keogh, E., Lonardi, S., Chiu, B.: A symbolic representation of time series, with implications for streaming algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGMOD Workshop on Research Issues in Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery pp. 2–11. ACM (2003)
Lokan, C., Wright, T., Hill, P., Stringer, M.: Organizational benchmarking using the ISBSG data repository. IEEE Softw. 18(5), 26–32 (2001)
Nayebi, M., Kuznetsov, K., Chen, P., Zeller, A., Ruhe, G.: Anatomy of functionality deletion. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR18), Gothenburg, Sweden (2018)
Ochodek, M., Staron, M., Meding, W.: SimSAX: a measure of project similarity based on symbolic approximation method and software defect inflow. Inf. Softw. Technol. (2019). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950584919301363
Rana, R., Staron, M., Berger, C., Hansson, J., Nilsson, M., Törner, F., Meding, W., Höglund, C.: Selecting software reliability growth models and improving their predictive accuracy using historical projects data. J. Syst. Softw. 98, 59–78 (2014)
Shepperd, M., Schofield, C.: Estimating software project effort using analogies. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 23(11), 736–743 (1997)
Silhavy, R., Silhavy, P., Prokopová, Z.: Evaluating subset selection methods for use case points estimation. Inf. Softw. Technol. 97, 1–9 (2018)
Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Host, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wessln, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Boston (2000)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Ochodek, M., Staron, M., Meding, W. (2020). On Identifying Similarities in Git Commit Trends—A Comparison Between Clustering and SimSAX. In: Winkler, D., Biffl, S., Mendez, D., Bergsmann, J. (eds) Software Quality: Quality Intelligence in Software and Systems Engineering. SWQD 2020. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 371. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35510-4_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35510-4_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-35509-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-35510-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)