Impact of Installation Counts on Perceived Quality: A Case Study on Debian

Software defects are generally used to indicate software quality. However, due to the nature of software, we are often only able to know about the defects found and reported, either following the testing process or after being deployed. In software research studies, it is assumed that a higher amount of defect reports represents a higher amount of defects in the software system. In this paper, we argue that widely deployed programs have more reported defects, regardless of their actual number of defects. To address this question, we perform a case study on the Debian GNU/Linux distribution, a well-known free / open source software collection. We compare the defects reported for all the software packages in Debian with their popularity. We find that the number of reported defects for a Debian package is limited by its popularity. This finding has implications on defect prediction studies, showing that they need to consider the impact of popularity on perceived quality, otherwise they might be risking bias.

[1]  Philipp J. H. Schröder A Statistical Analysis of Defects in Debian and Strategies for Improving Quality in Free Software Projects , 2006 .

[2]  Stefano Zacchiroli,et al.  The Ultimate Debian Database: Consolidating bazaar metadata for Quality Assurance and data mining , 2010, 2010 7th IEEE Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR 2010).

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

[4]  Norman E. Fenton,et al.  Quantitative Analysis of Faults and Failures in a Complex Software System , 2000, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[5]  Giancarlo Succi,et al.  An empirical study of open-source and closed-source software products , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[6]  Tim Menzies,et al.  Data Mining Static Code Attributes to Learn Defect Predictors , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[7]  Nachiappan Nagappan,et al.  Predicting defects using network analysis on dependency graphs , 2008, 2008 ACM/IEEE 30th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[8]  Ping Zhang,et al.  Predictors of customer perceived software quality , 2005, Proceedings. 27th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2005. ICSE 2005..

[9]  Thomas Zimmermann,et al.  What Makes a Good Bug Report? , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[10]  Daniel M. Germán,et al.  Macro-level software evolution: a case study of a large software compilation , 2009, Empirical Software Engineering.

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

[12]  Foutse Khomh,et al.  Is it a bug or an enhancement?: a text-based approach to classify change requests , 2008, CASCON '08.

[13]  Ahmed E. Hassan,et al.  A Case Study of Bias in Bug-Fix Datasets , 2010, 2010 17th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering.

[14]  Martin Michlmayr,et al.  A Statistical Analysis of Defects in Debian and Strategies for Improving Quality in Free Software Projects , 2006 .

[15]  Westley Weimer,et al.  Modeling bug report quality , 2007, ASE '07.

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

[17]  Daniel M. Germán,et al.  Perspectives on bugs in the Debian bug tracking system , 2010, 2010 7th IEEE Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR 2010).

[18]  Audris Mockus,et al.  Software Dependencies, Work Dependencies, and Their Impact on Failures , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[19]  Tibor Gyimóthy,et al.  Empirical validation of object-oriented metrics on open source software for fault prediction , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[20]  Laurie A. Williams,et al.  Predicting failures with developer networks and social network analysis , 2008, SIGSOFT '08/FSE-16.