Do as I Do, Not as I Say: Do Contribution Guidelines Match the GitHub Contribution Process?

Omar Elazhary, M. Storey, Neil A. Ernst, A. Zaidman
{"title":"Do as I Do, Not as I Say: Do Contribution Guidelines Match the GitHub Contribution Process?","authors":"Omar Elazhary, M. Storey, Neil A. Ernst, A. Zaidman","doi":"10.1109/ICSME.2019.00043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Developer contribution guidelines are used in social coding sites like GitHub to explain and shape the process a project expects contributors to follow. They set standards for all participants and \"save time and hassle caused by improperly created pull requests or issues that have to be rejected and re-submitted\" (GitHub). Yet, we lack a systematic understanding of the content of a typical contribution guideline, as well as the extent to which these guidelines are followed in practice. Additionally, understanding how guidelines may impact projects that use Continuous Integration as part of the contribution process is of particular interest. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a mixed-methods study of 53 GitHub projects with explicit contribution guidelines and coded the guidelines to extract key themes. We then created a process model using GitHub activity data (e.g., commit, new issue, new pull request) to compare the actual activity with the prescribed contribution guidelines. We show that approximately 68% of these projects diverge significantly from the expected process.","PeriodicalId":106748,"journal":{"name":"2019 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"22","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2019 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSME.2019.00043","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

Abstract

Developer contribution guidelines are used in social coding sites like GitHub to explain and shape the process a project expects contributors to follow. They set standards for all participants and "save time and hassle caused by improperly created pull requests or issues that have to be rejected and re-submitted" (GitHub). Yet, we lack a systematic understanding of the content of a typical contribution guideline, as well as the extent to which these guidelines are followed in practice. Additionally, understanding how guidelines may impact projects that use Continuous Integration as part of the contribution process is of particular interest. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a mixed-methods study of 53 GitHub projects with explicit contribution guidelines and coded the guidelines to extract key themes. We then created a process model using GitHub activity data (e.g., commit, new issue, new pull request) to compare the actual activity with the prescribed contribution guidelines. We show that approximately 68% of these projects diverge significantly from the expected process.
做我所做的,而不是我所说的:贡献指南是否与GitHub贡献流程相匹配?
像GitHub这样的社交编码网站使用开发者贡献指南来解释和塑造项目期望贡献者遵循的过程。他们为所有参与者设定了标准,并“节省了因不正确创建的拉取请求或必须被拒绝和重新提交的问题而造成的时间和麻烦”(GitHub)。然而,我们缺乏对典型贡献指南内容的系统理解,以及这些指南在实践中被遵循的程度。此外,理解指导方针如何影响使用持续集成作为贡献过程一部分的项目是特别有趣的。为了解决这一知识差距,我们对53个GitHub项目进行了混合方法研究,并提供了明确的贡献指导方针,并对指导方针进行了编码,以提取关键主题。然后,我们使用GitHub活动数据(例如,提交、新问题、新拉取请求)创建了一个流程模型,将实际活动与规定的贡献指南进行比较。我们表明,这些项目中大约有68%与预期的过程存在显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信