short-paper

Code review participation: game theoretical modeling of reviewers in gerrit datasets

Authors:

Kenichi MatsumotoAuthors Info & Claims

CHASE '16: Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering

Pages 64 - 67

https://doi.org/10.1145/2897586.2897605

Published: 14 May 2016 Publication History

Get Access

Abstract

Code review is a common practice for improving the quality of source code changes and expediting knowledge transfer in a development community. In modern code review, source code changes or patches are considered to be assessed and approved for integration by multiple reviews. However, from our empirical study, we found that some patches are reviewed by only one reviewer, and some reviewers did not continue the review discussion, which can have negative effects on software quality. To understand these reviewers' behaviors, we model the code review situation based on the snowdrift game, which is used to analyze social dilemmas. With this game-theoretical modeling, we found that it can explain reviewers' behaviors well.

References

[1]

P. C. Rigby and C. Bird, "Convergent contemporary software peer review practices," in ESEC/FSE '13, 2013, pp. 202--212.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[2]

A. Bacchelli and C. Bird, "Expectations, outcomes, and challenges of modern code review," in ICSE '13, 2013, pp. 712--721.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[3]

P. C. Rigby and M.-A. Storey, "Understanding broadcast based peer review on open source software projects," in ICSE '11, 2011, pp. 541--550.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[4]

S. McIntosh, Y. Kamei, B. Adams, and A. E. Hassan, "The impact of code review coverage and code review participation on software quality: A case study of the qt, vtk, and itk projects," in MSR '14, 2014, pp. 192--201.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[5]

A. Bosu and J. C. Carver, "Impact of developer reputation on code review outcomes in oss projects: An empirical investigation," in ESEM '14, 2014, pp. 33:1--33:10.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[6]

N. Kitagawa, H. Hata, A. Ihara, K. Kogiso, and K. Matsumoto, "Cooperation in code review: A theoretical and empirical study," in FOSE '15, 2015, pp. 203--212. (in Japanese)

Google Scholar

[7]

H. Hata, T. Todo, S. Onoue, and K. Matsumoto, "Characteristics of sustainable oss projects: A theoretical and empirical study," in CHASE '15, 2015, pp. 15--21.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[8]

Z. Sun, H. Hata, T. Todo, and M. Yokoo, "Exchange of indivisible objects with asymmetry," in IJCAI '15, 2015, pp. 97--103.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[9]

M. Osborne and A. Rubinstein, A Course in Game Theory. MIT Press, 1994.

Google Scholar

[10]

Y. Shoham and K. Leyton-Brown, Multiagent systems: Algorithmic, game-theoretic, and logical foundations. Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[11]

C. Hauert and M. Doebeli, "Spatial structure often inhibits the evolution of cooperation in the snowdrift game," Nature, vol. 428, no. 6983, pp. 643--646, 2004.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[12]

D. F. Bacon, Y. Chen, D. Parkes, and M. Rao, "A market-based approach to software evolution," in OOPSLA '09, 2009, pp. 973--980.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[13]

M. Rao, D. C. Parkes, M. Seltzer, and D. F. Bacon, "A Framework for Incentivizing Deep Fixes," in WIT-EC '14, 2014.

Google Scholar

[14]

D. F. Bacon, E. Bokelberg, Y. Chen, I. A. Kash, D. C. Parkes, M. Rao, and M. Sridharan, "Software economies," in FoSER '10, 2010, pp. 7--12.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

Cited By

View all

Badampudi DUnterkalmsteiner MBritto R(2023)Modern Code Reviews—Survey of Literature and PracticeACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/358500432:4(1-61)Online publication date: 26-May-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3585004
Stevens CSoundy JChan HJuristo N(2021)Exploring the efficiency of self-organizing software teams with game theoryProceedings of the 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering: New Ideas and Emerging Results10.1109/ICSE-NIER52604.2021.00016(36-40)Online publication date: 25-May-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/ICSE-NIER52604.2021.00016
Pascarella LSpadini DPalomba FBruntink MBacchelli A(2018)Information Needs in Contemporary Code ReviewProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/32744042:CSCW(1-27)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3274404
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Code review participation: game theoretical modeling of reviewers in gerrit datasets

Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

Recommendations

Code review quality: how developers see it
ICSE '16: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering

In a large, long-lived project, an effective code review process is key to ensuring the long-term quality of the code base. In this work, we study code review practices of a large, open source project, and we investigate how the developers themselves ...
Understanding code snippets in code reviews: a preliminary study of the OpenStack community
ICPC '22: Proceedings of the 30th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Program Comprehension

Code review is a mature practice for software quality assurance in software development with which reviewers check the code that has been committed by developers, and verify the quality of code. During the code review discussions, reviewers and ...
Demystifying code snippets in code reviews: a study of the OpenStack and Qt communities and a practitioner survey
Abstract
Code review is widely known as one of the best practices for software quality assurance in software development. In a typical code review process, reviewers check the code committed by developers to ensure the quality of the code, during which ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

CHASE '16: Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering

May 2016

142 pages

ISBN:9781450341554

DOI:10.1145/2897586

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 14 May 2016

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Short-paper

Conference

ICSE '16

Sponsor:

ACM
SIGSOFT
IEEE-CS\DATC
TCSE

ICSE '16: 38th International Conference on Software Engineering

May 14 - 22, 2016

Texas, Austin

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 47 of 70 submissions, 67%

Upcoming Conference

ICSE 2025

2025 IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering

April 26 - May 3, 2025

Ottawa , ON , Canada

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

5
Total Citations
View Citations
240
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)12
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 01 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

Badampudi DUnterkalmsteiner MBritto R(2023)Modern Code Reviews—Survey of Literature and PracticeACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/358500432:4(1-61)Online publication date: 26-May-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3585004
Stevens CSoundy JChan HJuristo N(2021)Exploring the efficiency of self-organizing software teams with game theoryProceedings of the 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering: New Ideas and Emerging Results10.1109/ICSE-NIER52604.2021.00016(36-40)Online publication date: 25-May-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/ICSE-NIER52604.2021.00016
Pascarella LSpadini DPalomba FBruntink MBacchelli A(2018)Information Needs in Contemporary Code ReviewProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/32744042:CSCW(1-27)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3274404
Rahman MRoy CKula RGonzalez-Barahona JHindle ATan L(2017)Predicting usefulness of code review comments using textual features and developer experienceProceedings of the 14th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories10.1109/MSR.2017.17(215-226)Online publication date: 20-May-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/MSR.2017.17
Üsfekes ÇYilmaz MTuzun EClarke PO’Connor R(2017)Examining Reward Mechanisms for Effective Usage of Application Lifecycle Management ToolsSystems, Software and Services Process Improvement10.1007/978-3-319-64218-5_21(259-268)Online publication date: 12-Aug-2017
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64218-5_21

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Abstract

References

Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

Code review quality: how developers see it

Understanding code snippets in code reviews: a preliminary study of the OpenStack community

Demystifying code snippets in code reviews: a study of the OpenStack and Qt communities and a practitioner survey

Comments

Information

Published In

Sponsors

Publisher

Publication History

Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Conference

Acceptance Rates

Upcoming Conference

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Login options

Full Access

View options

PDF

eReader

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media

Affiliations