Continuous Integration as a Means of Coordination

A case study of two open source projects
  • Jesper Holck
  • Niels Jørgensen
Conference paper


Open source software development challenges traditional views on software development; an apparently anarchistic bunch of hackers, working for free, produce widely used software. In this paper we investigate the role played by continuous integration with regard to coordinating the efforts of hundreds of developers in two open source projects, FreeBSD and Mozilla.


Development Version Production Release Open Source Project Design Document Global Software Development 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. About FreeBSD’s technological advances. Retrieved Dec. 1, 2002, from Beck, K., 2000, Extreme Programming Explained, Addison Wesley, Boston, USA.
  2. Core architecture. Retrieved Dec. 1, 2002, from
  3. Cusumano, M. A., and Selby, R. W., 1997, How Microsoft builds software, CACM, 40 (6): 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dempsey, B., Weiss, D., Jones, P., and Greenberg, J., 2002, Who is an open source developer? A qualitative profile of a community of open source Linux developers, CACM, 45 (2): 67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ebert, C., Parro, C. H., Suttels, R., and Kolarczyk, H., 2001, Improving validation activities in a global software development Paper presented at the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ‘01), Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  6. Eich, B., 2002, Mozilla 1.0 manifesto. Retrieved Nov. 15, 2002, from
  7. Eich, B., and Baker, M., 2003, Mozilla “super-review”. Retrieved April 21, 2003, from hacking/reviewers.html
  8. The FreeBSD committers’ big list of rules. Retrieved Dec. 1, 2002, from:
  9. The FreeBSD core team. Retrieved April 21, 2003, from
  10. Ghosh, R. A., Glott, R., Krieger, B., and Robles, G., 2002, Part 4: Survey of developers, FLOSS final report. Hacking Mozilla. Retrieved Dec. 1, 2002, from
  11. Hacking Mozilla with Bonsai. Retrieved Dec. 1, 2002, from
  12. Hars, A., and Ou, S., 2001, Working for free? Motivations of participating in open source projects. Paper presented at the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  13. Hcrbsleb, J. D., and Grintcr, R. E., 1999, Splitting the organization and integrating the code: Conway’s law revisited. Paper presented at the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ‘89).Google Scholar
  14. Hoffer, J. A., George, J. F., and Valacich, J. S., 2002, Modern System Analysis and Design. Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  15. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Jacobson, I., Booch, G., and Rumbaugh, J., 1999, The Unified Software Development Process. Addison Wesley, Indianapolis, USA.Google Scholar
  17. Jorgensen, N., 2001, Putting it all in the trunk: Incremental software development in the FreeBSD open source project, Information Systems Journal, 11 (4): 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kamp, P.-H., 1996, Source tree guidelines and policies. Retrieved Dec. I, 2002, from doc/en/books/developers-handbook/policies.html
  19. Lakhani, K. R., Wolf, B., Bates, J., and DiBona, C., 2002, The Boston Consulting Group hacker survey. Retrieved May 8, 2003, from
  20. Malone, T. W., and Crowston, K., 1994, The interdisciplinary study of coordination, ACM Computing Surveys, 26 (1): 87–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mockus, A., Fielding, R. T., and Herbsleb, J. D., 2002, Two case studies of open source software development: Apache and Mozilla, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 11(3): 309–346.Google Scholar
  22. Mozilla roles and responsibilities, 2002. Retrieved April 18, 2003, from:
  23. Olsson, K., and Karlsson, E.-A., 1999, Daily Build - the Best of Both Worlds: Rapid Development and Control. Swedish Engineering Industries, Lund, Sweden.Google Scholar
  24. Pressman, R. S., 1992, Software Engineering - a Practitioner’s Approach (3rd, international ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  25. Raymond, E. S., 2000, The cathedral and the bazaar, v. 3. Retrieved April 8, 2003, from —esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/
  26. Walrad, C., and Strom, D., 2002, The importance of branching models in SCM, IEEE Computer, 35 (9): 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Williams, D., 1998, C++ portability guide, version 0.8. Retrieved Dec. 1, 2002, from hacking/portable-cpp.htmlGoogle Scholar
  28. Yeh, C., 1999, Mozilla tree verification process. Retrieved April II, 2003, from
  29. Yin, R. K., 1998, Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jesper Holck
    • 1
  • Niels Jørgensen
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of InformaticsCopenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksbergDenmark
  2. 2.Computer ScienceRoskilde UniversityRoskildeDenmark

Personalised recommendations