Linus定律背后:对Mozilla和Python中开源软件同行评审实践的初步分析

Jing Wang, John Millar Carroll
{"title":"Linus定律背后:对Mozilla和Python中开源软件同行评审实践的初步分析","authors":"Jing Wang, John Millar Carroll","doi":"10.1109/CTS.2011.5928673","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Open source is an important model of collaborative knowledge work and virtual organizations. One of its work practices, peer review, is considered critical to its success, as Linus's law highlights. Thus, understanding open source peer review, particular effective review practices, will improve the understanding of how to support collaborative work in new ways. Therefore, we conduct case studies in two open source communities that are well recognized as effective and successful, Mozilla and Python. In this paper, we present the preliminary results of our analysis on data from the bug tracking systems of those two organizations. We identify four common activities critical to open source software peer review, submission, identification, resolution and evaluation. Differences between communities indicate factors, such as reporter expertise, product type and structure, and organization size, affect review activities. We also discuss features of open source software peer review distinct from traditional review, as well as reconsiderations of Linus's law.","PeriodicalId":426543,"journal":{"name":"2011 International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems (CTS)","volume":"55 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Behind Linus's law: A preliminary analysis of open source software peer review practices in Mozilla and Python\",\"authors\":\"Jing Wang, John Millar Carroll\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/CTS.2011.5928673\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Open source is an important model of collaborative knowledge work and virtual organizations. One of its work practices, peer review, is considered critical to its success, as Linus's law highlights. Thus, understanding open source peer review, particular effective review practices, will improve the understanding of how to support collaborative work in new ways. Therefore, we conduct case studies in two open source communities that are well recognized as effective and successful, Mozilla and Python. In this paper, we present the preliminary results of our analysis on data from the bug tracking systems of those two organizations. We identify four common activities critical to open source software peer review, submission, identification, resolution and evaluation. Differences between communities indicate factors, such as reporter expertise, product type and structure, and organization size, affect review activities. We also discuss features of open source software peer review distinct from traditional review, as well as reconsiderations of Linus's law.\",\"PeriodicalId\":426543,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2011 International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems (CTS)\",\"volume\":\"55 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-05-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2011 International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems (CTS)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/CTS.2011.5928673\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2011 International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems (CTS)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/CTS.2011.5928673","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

开源是协作式知识工作和虚拟组织的重要模式。正如莱纳斯的法律所强调的那样,同行评议被认为是其成功的关键。因此,理解开放源码的同行评审,特别是有效的评审实践,将提高对如何以新的方式支持协作工作的理解。因此,我们在Mozilla和Python这两个公认有效和成功的开源社区中进行案例研究。在本文中,我们介绍了对这两个组织的漏洞跟踪系统数据的初步分析结果。我们确定了对开源软件同行评审、提交、识别、解决和评估至关重要的四个常见活动。社区之间的差异表明了影响评审活动的因素,例如报告者的专业知识、产品类型和结构,以及组织规模。我们还讨论了开源软件同行评审不同于传统评审的特点,以及对Linus定律的重新考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Behind Linus's law: A preliminary analysis of open source software peer review practices in Mozilla and Python
Open source is an important model of collaborative knowledge work and virtual organizations. One of its work practices, peer review, is considered critical to its success, as Linus's law highlights. Thus, understanding open source peer review, particular effective review practices, will improve the understanding of how to support collaborative work in new ways. Therefore, we conduct case studies in two open source communities that are well recognized as effective and successful, Mozilla and Python. In this paper, we present the preliminary results of our analysis on data from the bug tracking systems of those two organizations. We identify four common activities critical to open source software peer review, submission, identification, resolution and evaluation. Differences between communities indicate factors, such as reporter expertise, product type and structure, and organization size, affect review activities. We also discuss features of open source software peer review distinct from traditional review, as well as reconsiderations of Linus's law.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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