Beyond the Code Itself: How Programmers Really Look at Pull Requests

Developers in open source projects must make decisions on contributions from other community members, such as whether or not to accept a pull request. However, secondary factors-beyond the code itself-can influence those decisions. For example, signals from GitHub profiles, such as a number of followers, activity, names, or gender can also be considered when developers make decisions. In this paper, we examine how developers use these signals (or not) when making decisions about code contributions. To evaluate this question, we evaluate how signals related to perceived gender identity and code quality influenced decisions on accepting pull requests. Unlike previous work, we analyze this decision process with data collected from an eye-tracker. We analyzed differences in what signals developers said are important for themselves versus what signals they actually used to make decisions about others. We found that after the code snippet (x=57%), the second place programmers spent their time fixating is on supplemental technical signals (x=32%), such as previous contributions and popular repositories. Diverging from what participants reported themselves, we also found that programmers fixated on social signals more than recalled.

[1]  Christian Kästner,et al.  Adding Sparkle to Social Coding: An Empirical Study of Repository Badges in the npm Ecosystem , 2018, 2018 IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion (ICSE-Companion).

[2]  Brian Fitzgerald,et al.  A framework analysis of the open source software development paradigm , 2000, ICIS.

[3]  Robin M. Kowalski,et al.  Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. , 1990 .

[4]  M A Just,et al.  A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehension. , 1980, Psychological review.

[5]  Casey Fiesler,et al.  Reddit Rules! Characterizing an Ecosystem of Governance , 2018, ICWSM.

[6]  Emerson R. Murphy-Hill,et al.  Do Developers Read Compiler Error Messages? , 2017, 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE).

[7]  Alexander Serebrenik,et al.  Going Farther Together: The Impact of Social Capital on Sustained Participation in Open Source , 2019, 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE).

[8]  John L. Campbell,et al.  Coding In-depth Semistructured Interviews , 2013 .

[9]  Premkumar T. Devanbu,et al.  Gender and Tenure Diversity in GitHub Teams , 2015, CHI.

[10]  Sylvia Beyer,et al.  Gender differences in the accuracy of self-evaluations of performance , 1990 .

[11]  R. Burt Structural Holes versus Network Closure as Social Capital , 2001 .

[12]  Emerson Murphy-Hill,et al.  Gender differences and bias in open source: pull request acceptance of women versus men , 2017, PeerJ Comput. Sci..

[13]  Daniela E. Damian,et al.  Selecting Empirical Methods for Software Engineering Research , 2008, Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering.

[14]  Arie van Deursen,et al.  An exploratory study of the pull-based software development model , 2014, ICSE.

[15]  Jonathan I. Maletic,et al.  Assessing the Comprehension of UML Class Diagrams via Eye Tracking , 2007, 15th IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC '07).

[16]  L. DeBruine Facial resemblance enhances trust , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[17]  Marco Aurélio Gerosa,et al.  Almost There: A Study on Quasi-Contributors in Open-Source Software Projects , 2018, 2018 IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE).

[18]  Chris Parnin,et al.  Dazed: Measuring the Cognitive Load of Solving Technical Interview Problems at the Whiteboard , 2018, 2018 IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: New Ideas and Emerging Technologies Results (ICSE-NIER).

[19]  Gary Bente,et al.  Do You Trust My Avatar? Effects of Photo-Realistic Seller Avatars and Reputation Scores on Trust in Online Transactions , 2014, HCI.

[20]  James D. Herbsleb,et al.  Influence of social and technical factors for evaluating contribution in GitHub , 2014, ICSE.

[21]  E. Goffman The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life , 1959 .

[22]  James D. Herbsleb,et al.  Social coding in GitHub: transparency and collaboration in an open software repository , 2012, CSCW.

[23]  Danah Boyd,et al.  I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience , 2011, New Media Soc..

[24]  James D. Herbsleb,et al.  Impression formation in online peer production: activity traces and personal profiles in github , 2013, CSCW.