Abstract
In this study, we intend to assess the improvements of Gerrit. The central concern is “Does Rietveld evolve into Gerrit as the developers intended?” To answer this question, we first compare qualitative features of two code review tools. We then conducted an interview with a developer of Gerrit and obtained the developer’s original intention of improvements in Gerrit. By analyzing mined data from code review logs, we try to explain the effects of improvements quantitatively. The result of analysis showed us that the improvements of Gerrit that the developer is expected are not observed explicitly.
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
References
Zimmermann, T., Weißgerber, P., Diehl, S., Zeller, A.: Mining version histories to guide software change. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 31(6), 429–445 (2005)
Catal, C., Diri, B.: Review: a systematic review of software fault prediction studies. Expert Syst. Appl. 36(4), 7346–7354 (2009). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.10.027
Hata, H.: Fault-prone module prediction using version histories. Ph.D. thesis, Osaka University (2012)
Rigby, P.C., Storey, M.A.: Understanding broadcast based peer review on open source software projects. In: Proceedings of 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 74–83 (2011)
Thomas, S.W.: Mining unstructured software repositories using ir models. Ph.D. thesis, Queen’s University (2012)
Rigby, P.C.: Understanding open source software peer review: review processes, parameters and statistical models, and underlying behaviours and mechanisms. Ph.D. thesis, BASc. Software Engineering, University of Ottawa (2004)
Gerrit code review—system design. URL http://gerrit-documentation.googlecode.com/svn/Documentation/2.5.1/dev-design.html
Gerrit code review—a quick introduction. URL http://gerrit-documentation.googlecode.com/svn/Documentation/2.5.1/intro-quick.html
Liang, J., Mizuno, O.: Analyzing involvements of reviewers through mining a code review repository. In: Joint Conference of the International Workshop on Software Measurement and the International Conference on Software Process and Product Measurement, pp. 126–132 (2011). doi:http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/IWSM-MENSURA.2011.33
Navarro, G.: A guided tour to approximate string matching. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 33(1), 31–88 (2001)
Bird, C., Gourley, A., Devanbu, P., Gertz, M., Swaminathan, A.: Mining email social networks. In: Proceedings of the 2006 International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories, pp. 137–143. ACM (2006)
Gerrit code review—access control. URL http://gerrit-documentation.googlecode.com/svn/Documentation/2.5.1/access-control.html
Baysal, O., Kononenko, O., Holmes, R., Godfrey, M.W.: The secret life of patches: a firefox case study. In: Proceedings of 19th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering, pp. 447–455 (2012)
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express great thanks to Mr. Shawn Pearce, who willingly gave us the answer to our question related to Gerrit. The authors would like to thank Prof. Ahmed E. Hassan and members in Software Analysis and Intelligent Laboratory. This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 24500038.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mizuno, O., Liang, J. (2015). Does a Code Review Tool Evolve as the Developer Intended?. In: Lee, R. (eds) Software Engineering Research, Management and Applications. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol 578. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11265-7_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11265-7_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-11264-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-11265-7
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)