On the usefulness of ownership metrics in open-source software projects

ContextCode ownership metrics were recently defined in order to distinguish major and minor contributors of a software module, and to assess whether the ownership of such a module is strong or shared between developers. ObjectiveThe relationship between these metrics and software quality was initially validated on proprietary software projects. Our objective in this paper is to evaluate such relationship in open-source software projects, and to compare these metrics to other code and process metrics. MethodOn a newly crafted dataset of seven open-source software projects, we perform, using inferential statistics, an analysis of code ownership metrics and their relationship with software quality. ResultsWe confirm the existence of a relationship between code ownership and software quality, but the relative importance of ownership metrics in multiple linear regression models is low compared to metrics such as the number of lines of code, the number of modifications performed over the last release, or the number of developers of a module. ConclusionAlthough we do find a relationship between code ownership and software quality, the added value of ownership metrics compared to other metrics is still to be proven.

[1]  D. L. Parnas,et al.  On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules , 1972, Software Pioneers.

[2]  Premkumar T. Devanbu,et al.  Ownership, experience and defects: a fine-grained study of authorship , 2011, 2011 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE).

[3]  Harald C. Gall,et al.  Don't touch my code!: examining the effects of ownership on software quality , 2011, ESEC/FSE '11.

[4]  Premkumar T. Devanbu,et al.  How, and why, process metrics are better , 2013, 2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE).

[5]  Ahmed E. Hassan,et al.  Predicting faults using the complexity of code changes , 2009, 2009 IEEE 31st International Conference on Software Engineering.

[6]  Cornelia Boldyreff,et al.  Exploring the Role of Commercial Stakeholders in Open Source Software Evolution , 2012, OSS.

[7]  Andreas Zeller,et al.  It's not a bug, it's a feature: How misclassification impacts bug prediction , 2013, 2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE).

[8]  Barbara Paech,et al.  Exploring the relationship of history characteristics and defect count: an empirical study , 2008, DEFECTS '08.

[9]  Akito Monden,et al.  An analysis of developer metrics for fault prediction , 2010, PROMISE '10.

[10]  Tomek Baginski.  The cathedral , 2002, SIGGRAPH '02.

[11]  Barbara Paech,et al.  Exploring the relationship of a file's history and its fault-proneness: An empirical method and its application to open source programs , 2010, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[12]  Thomas J. Ostrand,et al.  \{PROMISE\} Repository of empirical software engineering data , 2007 .

[13]  Premkumar T. Devanbu,et al.  Detecting Patch Submission and Acceptance in OSS Projects , 2007, Fourth International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories (MSR'07:ICSE Workshops 2007).

[14]  A. Zeller,et al.  Predicting Defects for Eclipse , 2007, Third International Workshop on Predictor Models in Software Engineering (PROMISE'07: ICSE Workshops 2007).

[15]  Chris F. Kemerer,et al.  A Metrics Suite for Object Oriented Design , 2015, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[16]  E.J. Weyuker,et al.  Using Developer Information as a Factor for Fault Prediction , 2007, Third International Workshop on Predictor Models in Software Engineering (PROMISE'07: ICSE Workshops 2007).

[17]  Premkumar T. Devanbu,et al.  Open Borders? Immigration in Open Source Projects , 2007, Fourth International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories (MSR'07:ICSE Workshops 2007).

[18]  Xavier Blanc,et al.  Code ownership in open-source software , 2014, EASE '14.

[19]  Witold Pedrycz,et al.  A comparative analysis of the efficiency of change metrics and static code attributes for defect prediction , 2008, 2008 ACM/IEEE 30th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[20]  Eric S. Raymond,et al.  The Cathedral & the Bazaar , 1999 .

[21]  Eric S. Raymond,et al.  The Cathedral and the Bazaar , 2000 .

[22]  Ulrike Groemping,et al.  Relative Importance for Linear Regression in R: The Package relaimpo , 2006 .

[23]  Kent L. Beck,et al.  Embracing Change with Extreme Programming , 1999, Computer.

[24]  J. Herbsleb,et al.  Two case studies of open source software development: Apache and Mozilla , 2002, TSEM.

[25]  H. Walpole,et al.  The Cathedral , 1922 .

[26]  David Lo,et al.  Identifying Linux bug fixing patches , 2012, 2012 34th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE).

[27]  David Lo,et al.  Empirical Evaluation of Bug Linking , 2013, 2013 17th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering.

[28]  Premkumar T. Devanbu,et al.  Fair and balanced?: bias in bug-fix datasets , 2009, ESEC/FSE '09.

[29]  Michele Lanza,et al.  Evaluating defect prediction approaches: a benchmark and an extensive comparison , 2011, Empirical Software Engineering.

[30]  D HerbslebJames,et al.  Two case studies of open source software development , 2002 .

[31]  Barry E. Feldman.  Relative Importance and Value , 2005 .

[32]  Sebastian G. Elbaum,et al.  Code churn: a measure for estimating the impact of code change , 1998, Proceedings. International Conference on Software Maintenance (Cat. No. 98CB36272).