何时以及如何做出重大改变

Chris Bogart, Christian Kästner, J. Herbsleb, Ferdian Thung
{"title":"何时以及如何做出重大改变","authors":"Chris Bogart, Christian Kästner, J. Herbsleb, Ferdian Thung","doi":"10.1145/3447245","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Open source software projects often rely on package management systems that help projects discover, incorporate, and maintain dependencies on other packages, maintained by other people. Such systems save a great deal of effort over ad hoc ways of advertising, packaging, and transmitting useful libraries, but coordination among project teams is still needed when one package makes a breaking change affecting other packages. Ecosystems differ in their approaches to breaking changes, and there is no general theory to explain the relationships between features, behavioral norms, ecosystem outcomes, and motivating values. We address this through two empirical studies. In an interview case study, we contrast Eclipse, NPM, and CRAN, demonstrating that these different norms for coordination of breaking changes shift the costs of using and maintaining the software among stakeholders, appropriate to each ecosystem’s mission. In a second study, we combine a survey, repository mining, and document analysis to broaden and systematize these observations across 18 ecosystems. We find that all ecosystems share values such as stability and compatibility, but differ in other values. Ecosystems’ practices often support their espoused values, but in surprisingly diverse ways. The data provides counterevidence against easy generalizations about why ecosystem communities do what they do.","PeriodicalId":7398,"journal":{"name":"ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM)","volume":"47 1","pages":"1 - 56"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When and How to Make Breaking Changes\",\"authors\":\"Chris Bogart, Christian Kästner, J. Herbsleb, Ferdian Thung\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3447245\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Open source software projects often rely on package management systems that help projects discover, incorporate, and maintain dependencies on other packages, maintained by other people. Such systems save a great deal of effort over ad hoc ways of advertising, packaging, and transmitting useful libraries, but coordination among project teams is still needed when one package makes a breaking change affecting other packages. Ecosystems differ in their approaches to breaking changes, and there is no general theory to explain the relationships between features, behavioral norms, ecosystem outcomes, and motivating values. We address this through two empirical studies. In an interview case study, we contrast Eclipse, NPM, and CRAN, demonstrating that these different norms for coordination of breaking changes shift the costs of using and maintaining the software among stakeholders, appropriate to each ecosystem’s mission. In a second study, we combine a survey, repository mining, and document analysis to broaden and systematize these observations across 18 ecosystems. We find that all ecosystems share values such as stability and compatibility, but differ in other values. Ecosystems’ practices often support their espoused values, but in surprisingly diverse ways. The data provides counterevidence against easy generalizations about why ecosystem communities do what they do.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7398,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM)\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"1 - 56\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"17\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3447245\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3447245","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

摘要

开源软件项目通常依赖于包管理系统,这些系统可以帮助项目发现、合并和维护对由其他人维护的其他包的依赖关系。这样的系统在广告、打包和传输有用库的特殊方式上节省了大量的工作,但是当一个包做出影响其他包的破坏性更改时,项目团队之间仍然需要协调。不同的生态系统有不同的突破变化的方法,并且没有通用的理论来解释特征、行为规范、生态系统结果和激励价值之间的关系。我们通过两项实证研究来解决这个问题。在一个访谈案例研究中,我们对比了Eclipse、NPM和CRAN,展示了这些不同的规范来协调破坏变更,在涉众之间转移使用和维护软件的成本,适合于每个生态系统的任务。在第二项研究中,我们将调查、资源库挖掘和文件分析结合起来,在18个生态系统中扩大和系统化这些观察结果。我们发现所有的生态系统都有共同的价值观,比如稳定性和兼容性,但在其他价值观上有所不同。生态系统的实践通常支持他们所信奉的价值观,但方式却出奇地多样化。这些数据提供了反证据,反驳了关于生态系统群落为什么会这样做的简单概括。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
When and How to Make Breaking Changes
Open source software projects often rely on package management systems that help projects discover, incorporate, and maintain dependencies on other packages, maintained by other people. Such systems save a great deal of effort over ad hoc ways of advertising, packaging, and transmitting useful libraries, but coordination among project teams is still needed when one package makes a breaking change affecting other packages. Ecosystems differ in their approaches to breaking changes, and there is no general theory to explain the relationships between features, behavioral norms, ecosystem outcomes, and motivating values. We address this through two empirical studies. In an interview case study, we contrast Eclipse, NPM, and CRAN, demonstrating that these different norms for coordination of breaking changes shift the costs of using and maintaining the software among stakeholders, appropriate to each ecosystem’s mission. In a second study, we combine a survey, repository mining, and document analysis to broaden and systematize these observations across 18 ecosystems. We find that all ecosystems share values such as stability and compatibility, but differ in other values. Ecosystems’ practices often support their espoused values, but in surprisingly diverse ways. The data provides counterevidence against easy generalizations about why ecosystem communities do what they do.
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