Studying the Cost and Effectiveness of OSS Quality Assessment Models: An Experience Report of Fujitsu QNET

SUMMARY Nowadays, open source software (OSS) systems are adopted by proprietary software projects. To reduce the risk of using problematic OSS systems (e.g., causing system crashes), it is important for pro- prietary software projects to assess OSS systems in advance. Therefore, OSS quality assessment models are studied to obtain information regarding the quality of OSS systems. Although the OSS quality assessment models are partially validated using a small number of case studies, to the best of our knowledge, there are few studies that empirically report how industrial projects actually use OSS quality assessment models in their own development process. In this study, we empirically evaluate the cost and effectiveness of OSS quality assessment models at Fujitsu Kyushu Network Technologies Limited (Fujitsu QNET). To conduct the empirical study, we collect datasets from (a) 120 OSS projects that Fujitsu QNET’s projects actually used and (b) 10 problematic OSS projects that caused major problems in the projects. We find that (1) it takes average and median times of 51 and 49 minutes, respectively, to gather all assessment metrics per OSS project and (2) there is a possibility that we can filter problematic OSS systems by using the threshold derived from a pool of assessment metrics. Fujitsu QNET’s developers agree that our results lead to improvements in Fujitsu QNET’s OSS assessment process. We believe that our work signif-icantly contributes to the empirical knowledge about applying OSS assess- ment techniques to industrial projects.

[1]  Audris Mockus,et al.  Thresholds for Size and Complexity Metrics: A Case Study from the Perspective of Defect Density , 2016, 2016 IEEE International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security (QRS).

[2]  Shane McIntosh,et al.  An empirical study of the impact of modern code review practices on software quality , 2015, Empirical Software Engineering.

[3]  Naoyasu Ubayashi,et al.  A Study of the Quality-Impacting Practices of Modern Code Review at Sony Mobile , 2016, 2016 IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion (ICSE-C).

[4]  Marco Tulio Valente,et al.  What is the Truck Factor of popular GitHub applications? A first assessment , 2015, PeerJ Prepr..

[5]  Naoyasu Ubayashi,et al.  Revisiting the applicability of the pareto principle to core development teams in open source software projects , 2015, IWPSE.

[6]  Mohamed Sarrab,et al.  Empirical study of open source software selection for adoption, based on software quality characteristics , 2014, Adv. Eng. Softw..

[7]  Klaas-Jan Stol,et al.  Is It All Lost? A Study of Inactive Open Source Projects , 2013, OSS.

[8]  Marco Torchiano,et al.  On the Difficulty of Computing the Truck Factor , 2011, PROFES.

[9]  Marco Torchiano,et al.  Is my project's truck factor low?: theoretical and empirical considerations about the truck factor threshold , 2011, WETSoM '11.

[10]  Tiago L. Alves,et al.  Deriving metric thresholds from benchmark data , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance.

[11]  Alberto Sillitti,et al.  Comparing OpenBRR, QSOS, and OMM Assessment Models , 2010, OSS.

[12]  Alberto Sillitti,et al.  Introducing the OpenSource Maturity Model , 2009, 2009 ICSE Workshop on Emerging Trends in Free/Libre/Open Source Software Research and Development.

[13]  Ioannis Stamelos,et al.  Evaluating the Quality of Open Source Software , 2009, SQM@CSMR.

[14]  Reidar Conradi,et al.  Adoption of Open Source in the Software Industry , 2008, OSS.

[15]  Jean-Christophe Deprez,et al.  Comparing Assessment Methodologies for Free/Open Source Software: OpenBRR and QSOS , 2008, PROFES.

[16]  Janice Singer,et al.  Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering , 2007 .

[17]  Sandro Morasca,et al.  OpenBQR: a framework for the assessment of OSS , 2007, OSS.

[18]  R. English,et al.  Identifying Success and Tragedy of FLOSS Commons: A Preliminary Classification of Sourceforge.net Projects , 2007, First International Workshop on Emerging Trends in FLOSS Research and Development (FLOSS'07: ICSE Workshops 2007).

[19]  Martin Michlmayr,et al.  Software Process Maturity and the Success of Free Software Projects , 2005, Software Engineering: Evolution and Emerging Technologies.

[20]  Martin Michlmayr,et al.  How to have a successful free software project , 2004, 11th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference.

[21]  Tibor Gyimóthy,et al.  Extracting facts from open source software , 2004, 20th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance, 2004. Proceedings..

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

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

[24]  Sandeep Krishnamurthy,et al.  Cave or Community? An Empirical Examination of 100 Mature Open Source Projects , 2002, First Monday.

[25]  Eric S. Raymond,et al.  The cathedral and the bazaar - musings on Linux and Open Source by an accidental revolutionary , 2001 .

[26]  Michael W. Godfrey,et al.  Evolution in open source software: a case study , 2000, Proceedings 2000 International Conference on Software Maintenance.

[27]  Giancarlo Succi,et al.  Assessing the Open Source Development Processes Using OMM , 2012, Adv. Softw. Eng..

[28]  Uzma Raja,et al.  Defining and Evaluating a Measure of Open Source Project Survivability , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[29]  T. Mens,et al.  Evidence for the Pareto principle in Open Source Software Activity , 2011 .

[30]  Ashutosh Das,et al.  Using FLOSSmole Data in Determining Business Readiness Ratings , 2007 .

[31]  Gregorio Robles,et al.  Evolution of Volunteer Participation in Libre Software Projects: Evidence from Debian , 2005 .

[32]  Gregorio Robles,et al.  Remote analysis and measurement of libre software systems by means of the CVSAnalY tool , 2004, ICSE 2004.

[33]  J. Hart [Qualitative methods]. , 2000, Recherche en soins infirmiers.