scispace - formally typeset
Proceedings ArticleDOI

More Common Than You Think: An In-depth Study of Casual Contributors

Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
This paper mined popular software repositories hosted on GitHub to investigate how common casual contributions are, and what are their characteristics, and found that both casual contributors and project maintainers believe that casual contributions have more benefits than drawbacks.
Abstract
Source code hosting websites (code forges) have recently changed to more social environments, and the contribution process evolved to the so-called pull-based development model. Due to the facilities brought by this evolution, Open Source Software (OSS) projects are now facing a high exposure, leading to an increasing number of contributors. However, not all these contributors want to have a long-term engagement with the project. In fact, popular projects are known to have a restricted set of core developers who drive the project, but now these projects count on a broad set of "not that involved" developers, which are responsible for a long tail of small contributions. In this paper, we shed the light on this important but overlooked set of developers: the casual contributors (also known as drive-by commits). First, we mined popular software repositories hosted on GitHub to investigate how common casual contributions are, and what are their characteristics. Second, we conducted two surveys with (1) the casual contributors and (2) the project maintainers aimed at understanding what motivates casual contributors and how they are perceived. Our results showed that although casual contributors are rather common (48.98% of the whole population of contributors in the projects analyzed), they are responsible for only 1.73% of the total number of commits. We also found that casual contributions are far from being trivial: even though a significant proportion of them are fixing typos and grammar issues (28.64%), we found several of them that have fixed bugs (30.20%), added new features (18.75%), and refactored code (8.85%). Still, we found that both casual contributors and project maintainers believe that casual contributions have more benefits than drawbacks. As a casual contributor said: "every bit helps".

read more

Citations
More filters
Proceedings ArticleDOI

Overcoming open source project entry barriers with a portal for newcomers

TL;DR: The results indicate that FLOSScoach played an important role in guiding newcomers and in lowering barriers related to the orientation and contribution process, whereas it was not effective in lowering technical barriers.
Journal ArticleDOI

A Systematic Mapping Study of Software Development With GitHub

TL;DR: The high activity of research work around the field of Open Source collaboration, especially in the software domain, revealed a set of shortcomings and proposed some actions to mitigate them.
Proceedings ArticleDOI

Understanding the impressions, motivations, and barriers of one time code contributors to FLOSS projects: a survey

TL;DR: There are some concrete actions FLOSS projects can take to increase the chances of converting One-Time code Contributors (OTC) into long-term contributors.
Journal ArticleDOI

The Power of Bots: Characterizing and Understanding Bots in OSS Projects

TL;DR: Although integrators reported that bots are useful for maintenance tasks, there was not a consistent, statistically significant difference between before and after bot adoption across the analyzed projects in terms of number of comments, commits, changed files, and time to close pull requests.
Proceedings ArticleDOI

Why modern open source projects fail

TL;DR: In this article, the authors conducted a survey with maintainers of 104 failed open source projects to understand the reasons for their failures and strategies to overcome the failure of the studied projects.
References
More filters
Book

Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory

TL;DR: Theoretical Foundations and Practical Considerations for Getting Started and Techniques for Achieving Theoretical Integration are presented.
Journal Article

Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory

TL;DR: (PDF) Thematic Analysis in Qualitative research | Anindita (PDF) Qualitative Research ProcessBasics of QualitativeResearch | SAGE Publications IncQualitative Research Method Summary JMEST
Journal ArticleDOI

Power-Law Distributions in Empirical Data

TL;DR: This work proposes a principled statistical framework for discerning and quantifying power-law behavior in empirical data by combining maximum-likelihood fitting methods with goodness-of-fit tests based on the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) statistic and likelihood ratios.
Book

Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code

TL;DR: Almost every expert in Object-Oriented Development stresses the importance of iterative development, but how do you add function to the existing code base while still preserving its design integrity?
Book

The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary

Eric S. Raymond, +1 more
TL;DR: From the Publisher: The Cathedral and the Bazaar is a must read for anyone who cares about the future of the computer industry or the dynamics of the information economy.
Related Papers (5)