微信服务号

微信订阅号

2025年3月24日 10:00 星期一
首页 > 过刊浏览>2023年第34卷第9期 >4056-4068. DOI:10.13328/j.cnki.jos.006873
PDF HTML阅读 XML下载 导出引用 引用提醒
TensorFlow开源软件社区中贡献修订的实证研究
作者:
作者简介:

李志星(1992-),男,博士,助理研究员,主要研究领域为群体协同,开源软件,实证软件工程;余跃(1988-),男,博士,副研究员,CCF高级会员,主要研究领域为实证软件工程,群体化开发,开源软件生态;王涛(1984-),男,博士,副研究员,CCF高级会员,主要研究领域为软件仓库挖掘,基于群体智能的软件工程,开源软件生态;蔡孟栾(1998-),男,硕士生,CCF学生会员,主要研究领域为智能化软件工程,数据挖掘;王怀民(1962-),男,博士,教授,CCF会士,主要研究领域为可信计算,群体智能,分布式计算.

通讯作者:

余跃,E-mail:yuyue@nudt.edu.cn

基金项目:

科技创新2030—“新一代人工智能”重大项目(2021ZD0112900); 国家自然科学基金(62141209)


Empirical Study on Pull-request Revisions in Open Source Software Community of TensorFlow
Author:
  • 摘要
    • | |
  • 访问统计
    • |
  • 参考文献 [34]
    • |
  • 相似文献 [20]
    • | | |
  • 文章评论
    摘要:

    人工智能(artificial intelligence, AI)的飞速发展得益于开源社区的开放协同, 大量的开发者通过提交PR (pull-request)为AI开源软件做贡献. 然而, 外部贡献者所提交的PR质量参差不齐, 开源项目管理团队需要对PR进行代码审查, 并要求贡献者根据审查意见对PR进行修订. PR的修订过程对AI开源软件的质量有着重要的影响, 因此对该过程进行更加全面、深入的实证研究很有必要. 首先, 从TensorFlow开源软件社区中收集一组PR的修订历史, 通过对PR的代码提交信息以及审查评论进行定性分析, 归纳总结PR修订类型的分类体系. 其次, 根据此分类体系人工标注一组修订数据集, 并基于此数据集定量分析不同修订类型的频率分布、次序分布以及关联关系. 研究结果表明: TensorFlow开源社区中的PR存在3大类共11种不同类型的修订, 其中完善类修订出现的频率最高; 此外, 相比于其他类修订和完善类修订, 修正类修订更常发生在PR的早期更新中; 与结构相关的修订更有可能与其他类型的修订同现或邻现, 配置修订以及变基修订有较大概率会接连出现. 实证研究结果可帮助AI开源实践者和研究者更好地理解PR的修订过程, 特别是有助于引导PR的审查和修订行为、提高开源群体协同效率.

    Abstract:

    The recent boom in artificial intelligence (AI) benefits from the open collaboration of the open source software (OSS) community. An increasing number of OSS developers are contributing to AI projects by submitting pull requests (PRs). However, the PR quality submitted by external contributors varies, and the AI project management teams have to review PRs and ask contributors to revise them if necessary. Since the revision exerts a direct impact on the review efficiency and acceptance of PRs, it is important to achieve a better understanding of PR revisions. This study conducts an empirical study based on a set of PRs and their revision histories collected from the TensorFlow project. It first manually analyzes a sample of commit messages, reviews PR comments, and constructs a taxonomy of revision types. Then, according to the defined taxonomy, a large set of PR revisions are manually labeled. Based on the dataset, the frequency and order of each type of revision are explored. Additionally, this study also investigates the frequency distribution, order distribution, and correlation relationship between different types of revisions. The empirical findings show that there are 11 different types of revisions which can be classified into three categories. Evolvability revisions occur more frequently than other revision types, and functional revisions are more likely to occur in the early PR updates than evolvability revisions and other types of revisions. Structure-related revisions have a high chance to co-occur or adj-occur with other revisions. Configuration-related revisions or rebasing revisions are more likely to appear in succession. The empirical results can help AI open source practitioners and researchers better understand the PR revision process, especially guide the review and revision behaviors of PRs and improve the collaborative efficiency of open source groups.

    参考文献
    [1] He KM, Zhang XY, Ren SQ, Sun J. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In: Proc. of the 2016 IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Las Vegas: IEEE, 2016. 770-778.
    [2] Abadi M, Barham P, Chen JM, Chen ZF, Davis A, Dean J, Devin M, Ghemawat S, Irving G, Isard M, Kudlur M, Levenberg J, Monga R, Moore S, Murray DG, Steiner B, Tucker P, Vasudevan V, Warden P, Wicke M, Yu Y, Zheng XQ. TensorFlow: A system for large-scale machine learning. In: Proc. of the 12th USENIX Conf. on Operating Systems Design and Implementation. Savannah: USENIX Association, 2016. 265-283.
    [3] Hamet P, Tremblay J. Artificial intelligence in medicine. Metabolism, 2017, 69: S36-S40. [doi: 10.1016/j.metabol.2017.01.011
    [4] Chassignol M, Khoroshavin A, Klimova A, Bilyatdinova A. Artificial intelligence trends in education: A narrative overview. Procedia Computer Science, 2018, 136: 16-24. [doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2018.08.233
    [5] Gousios G, Pinzger M, van Deursen A. An exploratory study of the pull-based software development model. In: Proc. of the 36th Int’l Conf. on Software Engineering. Hyderabad: ACM, 2014. 345-355.
    [6] Zhu JX, Zhou MH, Mockus A. Effectiveness of code contribution: From patch-based to pull-request-based tools. In: Proc. of the 24th ACM SIGSOFT Int’l Symp. on Foundations of Software Engineering. Seattle: ACM, 2016. 871-882.
    [7] Vasilescu B, Yu Y, Wang HM, Devanbu P, Filkov V. Quality and productivity outcomes relating to continuous integration in GitHub. In: Proc. of the 10th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering. Bergamo: ACM, 2015. 805-816.
    [8] Yu Y, Wang HM, Yin G, Wang T. Reviewer recommendation for pull-requests in GitHub: What can we learn from code review and bug assignment? Information and Software Technology, 2016, 74: 204-218. [doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2016.01.004
    [9] Nadri R, Rodriguezperez G, Nagappan M. On the relationship between the developer’s perceptible race and ethnicity and the evaluation of contributions in OSS. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering, 2021, 48(8): 2955-2968.
    [10] Chacon S, Straub B. Pro Git. 2nd ed., Berkeley: Apress, 2014.
    [11] Gousios G, Zaidman A, Storey MA, van Deursen A. Work practices and challenges in pull-based development: The integrator’s perspective. In: Proc. of the 37th IEEE/ACM IEEE Int’l Conf. on Software Engineering. Florence: IEEE, 2015. 358-368.
    [12] Dabbish L, Stuart C, Tsay J, Herbsleb J. Social coding in GitHub: Transparency and collaboration in an open software repository. In: Proc. of the 2012 ACM Conf. Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Seattle: ACM, 2012. 1277-1286.
    [13] Jiang J, Yang Y, He JH, Blanc X, Zhang L. Who should comment on this pull request? Analyzing attributes for more accurate commenter recommendation in pull-based development. Information and Software Technology, 2017, 84: 48-62. [doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2016.10.006
    [14] Tsay J, Dabbish L, Herbsleb J. Influence of social and technical factors for evaluating contribution in GitHub. In: Proc. of the 36th Int’l Conf. on Software Engineering. Hyderabad: ACM, 2014. 356-366.
    [15] Tsay J, Dabbish L, Herbsleb J. Let’s talk about it: Evaluating contributions through discussion in GitHub. In: Proc. of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT Int’l Symp. on Foundations of Software Engineering. Hong Kong: ACM, 2014. 144-154.
    [16] Ford D, Behroozi M, Serebrenik A, Parnin C. Beyond the code itself: How programmers really look at pull requests. In: Proc. of the 41st IEEE/ACM Int’l Conf. on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society. Montreal: IEEE, 2019. 51-60.
    [17] Chillarege R, Bhandari IS, Chaar JK, Halliday MJ, Moebus DS, Ray BK, Wong MY. Orthogonal defect classification—A concept for in-process measurements. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering, 1992, 18(11): 943-956. [doi: 10.1109/32.177364
    [18] El Emam K, Wieczorek I. The repeatability of code defect classifications. In: Proc. of the 9th Int’l Symp. on Software Reliability Engineering. Paderborn: IEEE, 1998. 322-333.
    [19] Mäntylä MV, Lassenius C. What types of defects are really discovered in code reviews? IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering, 2009, 35(3): 430-448. [doi: 10.1109/TSE.2008.71
    [20] Beller M, Bacchelli A, Zaidman A, Juergens E. Modern code reviews in open-source projects: Which problems do they fix? In: Proc. of the 11th Working Conf. on Mining Software Repositories. Hyderabad: ACM, 2014. 202-211.
    [21] Panichella S, Zaugg N. An empirical investigation of relevant changes and automation needs in modern code review. Empirical Software Engineering, 2020, 25(6): 4833-4872. [doi: 10.1007/s10664-020-09870-3
    [22] Tan X, Zhou MH, Sun ZY. A first look at good first issues on GitHub. In: Proc. of the 28th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conf. and Symp. on the Foundations of Software Engineering. Virtual Event: ACM, 2020. 398-409.
    [23] Jiang J, Lo D, Ma XY, Feng FL, Zhang L. Understanding inactive yet available assignees in GitHub. Information and Software Technology, 2017, 91: 44-55. [doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2017.06.005
    [24] Kalliamvakou E, Gousios G, Blincoe K, Singer L. The promises and perils of mining GitHub. In: Proc. of the 11th Working Conf. on Mining Software Repositories. Hyderabad: ACM, 2014. 92-101.
    [25] Borges H, Hora A, Valente MT. Understanding the factors that impact the popularity of GitHub repositories. In: Proc. of the 2016 IEEE Int’l Conf. on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME). Raleigh: IEEE, 2016. 334-344.
    [26] Fusch PI, Ness LR. Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 2015, 20(9): 1408-1416
    [27] Li ZX, Yu Y, Wang T, Yin G, Li SS, Wang HM. Are you still working on this? An empirical study on pull request abandonment. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering, 2022, 48(6): 2173-2188. [doi: 10.1109/TSE.2021.3053403
    [28] Yu Y, Yin G, Wang T, Yang C, Wang HM. Determinants of pull-based development in the context of continuous integration. Science China Information Sciences, 2016, 59(8): 080104. [doi: 10.1007/s11432-016-5595-8
    [29] Gousios G, Storey MA, Bacchelli A. Work practices and challenges in pull-based development: The contributor’s perspective. In: Proc. of the 38th IEEE/ACM Int’l Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE). Austin: IEEE, 2016. 285-296.
    [30] Wilcoxon F. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. In: Kotz S, Johnson NL, eds. Breakthroughs in Statistics. New York: Springer, 1992. 196-202.
    [31] van der Veen E, Gousios G, Zaidman A. Automatically prioritizing pull requests. In: Proc. of the 12th IEEE/ACM Working Conf. on Mining Software Repositories. Florence: IEEE, 2015. 357-361.
    [32] Elazhary O, Storey MA, Ernst N, Zaidman A. Do as i do, not as i say: Do contribution guidelines match the GitHub contribution process? In: Proc. of the 2019 IEEE Int’l Conf. on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME). Cleveland: IEEE, 2019. 286-290.
    [33] Pinto G, Steinmacher I, Gerosa MA. More common than you think: An in-depth study of casual contributors. In: Proc. of the 23rd IEEE Int’l Conf. on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER). Osaka: IEEE, 2016. 112-123.
    [34] Steinmacher I, Pinto G, Wiese IS, Gerosa MA. Almost there: A study on quasi-contributors in open-source software projects. In: Proc. of the 40th IEEE/ACM Int’l Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE). Gothenburg: IEEE, 2018. 256-266.
    引证文献
    网友评论
    网友评论
    分享到微博
    发 布
引用本文

李志星,余跃,王涛,蔡孟栾,王怀民. TensorFlow开源软件社区中贡献修订的实证研究.软件学报,2023,34(9):4056-4068

复制
分享
文章指标
  • 点击次数:1013
  • 下载次数: 3488
  • HTML阅读次数: 1824
  • 引用次数: 0
历史
  • 收稿日期:2022-09-04
  • 最后修改日期:2022-10-13
  • 在线发布日期: 2023-01-13
  • 出版日期: 2023-09-06
文章二维码
友情链接:中国科学院软件研究所中国计算机学会中国科学院国家自然科学基金委员会CCF数字图书馆Int'l J of Softw Info计算机系统应用
您是第19727454位访问者
版权所有：中国科学院软件研究所 京ICP备05046678号-3
地址：北京市海淀区中关村南四街4号,邮政编码：100190
电话：010-62562563 传真：010-62562533 Email：jos@iscas.ac.cn
技术支持：北京勤云科技发展有限公司

京公网安备 11040202500063号