Advertisement

Evidence-Based Insights about Issue Management Processes: An Exploratory Study

  • Vahid Garousi
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5543)

Abstract

Issue (e.g., defect) repositories usually contain rich information that can be used to mine evidence about team dynamics, issue management processes, and other aspects of software development. The exploratory case study reported in this paper uses quantitative issue tracking data of three open-source projects to derive insights into how issues emerge and are handled in open-source projects. The mined information provides empirical evidence for a few beliefs in the software engineering and process communities. For example, depending on their specific context factors, projects show different degrees of responsiveness to the occurrence of defects. Software engineers can use techniques similar to those presented in this paper to mine the issue repositories of their in-house development projects. This may serve to better characterize their issue management processes, to perform self-assessment and evaluation on them, and also to identify process smells (symptoms) in those processes.

Keywords

Qualitative analysis evidence report issue management issue processing issue repositories open-source projects 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Mayer-Schönberger, V., Lazer, D.: Governance and Information Technology: From Electronic Government to Information Government. MIT Press, Cambridge (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    http://alexandria.wiki.sourceforge.net (last accessed, August 2008)
  3. 3.
    Xie, T., Pei, J., Hassan, A.E.: Mining Software Engineering Data. In: Companion of the International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 172–173 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Basili, V., Caldeira, G., Rombach, H.D.: The Goal Question Metric Approach. In: Marciniak, J. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Software Engineering. Wiley, Chichester (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ambler, S.: Model Reviews: Best Practice or Process Smell?, http://www.agilemodeling.com/essays/modelReviews.htm (last accessed, August 2008)
  6. 6.
    Crowston, K., et al.: Towards a Portfolio of FLOSS Project Success Measures. In: Workshop on Open Source Software Engineering, International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 29–33 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crowston, K., Scozzi, B.: Coordination Practices for Bug Fixing within FLOSS Development Teams. In: Proc. of the Int. Workshop on Computer-Supported Activity Coordination (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jensen, C., Scacchi, W.: Data Mining for Software Process Discovery in Open Source Software Development Communities. In: Proc. Workshop on Mining Software Repositories, pp. 96–100 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Raymond, E.S.: The Cathedral and the Bazaar. First Monday Journal 3(3) (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    v. d. Aalst, W.M.P., Weijters, A.J.M.M.: Process mining- a research agenda. Computers in Industry, Special issue on Process / Workflow Mining 53(3), 231–244 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Madey, G. (ed.): The SourceForge Research Data Archive (SRDA). University of Notre Dame (2008), http://zerlot.cse.nd.edu (last accessed: September 2008)

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vahid Garousi
    • 1
  1. 1.Software Quality Engineering Research Group (SoftQual) Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Schulich School of EngineeringUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations