ふじこ/IWESEP2010
をテンプレートにして作成
[
トップ
] [
新規
|
一覧
|
検索
|
最終更新
|
ヘルプ
]
開始行:
[[ふじこ]]
* IWESEP2010 [#r79a5577]
#contents
IWESEP2010~
International Workshop on Empirical Software Engineering ...
[[http://iwesep.wordpress.com/:http://iwesep.wordpress.co...
~
- Paper Submission: October 11, 2010
- Acceptance Notification: November 8, 2010
- Camera Ready Copy: November 22, 2010
~
タイトル：An Analysis of Committers Activities in the Pat...
原稿：&attachref(IWESEP_paper_提出版.pdf);~
** 予定 [#b4efb562]
- 原稿
-- 10/11原稿提出
* 査読結果 [#n87e29b1]
rejected
---------------------------- REVIEW 1 -------------------...
- Reviewer 1
In this paper, the authors look at the process by which p...
reviewed before being accepted into an OSS project or rej...
the rate that different groups edit and review patches an...
review and edit patches. Unfortunately, there are a numb...
the paper that make it unsuitable for publication in it's...
doubt, however, that if changes are made (and I'm includi...
a revision of this paper would be of publication quality.
My biggest problem with this work is that is omits two im...
on the subject. Rigby et al published a very in depth st...
review process in Apache at ICSE 2008. Bird et al publis...
examined what factors influence someone becoming a core d...
factors examined were patch submission and acceptance), w...
of OSS projects and include PostgreSQL. The fact that th...
in the goal of these studies and that they are neither di...
authors indicate what differentiates their study from pri...
point against this paper.
The authors make a number of claims that are either incor...
unsubstantiated and do not provide references. For insta...
increasing committers speeds up development because they ...
commit directly to the project repository. In a number o...
is incorrect. Most OSS projects, still review and discus...
even if they are made by core developers. Rigby's paper ...
discussion of this phenomenon. The authors also claim th...
developer is selected as a committer through nomination a...
admirable contributions. This is correct, but a referenc...
One prime example of a good supporting reference would be...
ethnograhic study of the python project. The authors say...
easy to elect an appropriate deveoper as a committer from...
developers. Is this true? What evidence is this based o...
informed guess, then the author's should state that. The...
section 6 includes a claim that NPR, NPR, PRT, and PET ha...
select a committer depending on the state of the project ...
properties. Why? The author's have shown that there is ...
the two, but they have not examined anything about how co...
In the sixth paragraph, the authors claim that the restri...
committers is unique to PostgreSQL as opposed to other pr...
many projects that limit committers. There is no referen...
examples of projects that don't restrict committers.
I *LOVED* figure 1. This is a wonderful depiction of the...
review process and the terms used in the paper. Good job...
add is the acronyms PRT and PET since they are depicted a...
but do not appear on the figure.
The data collection is short on details. How were the pa...
my experience, I've found that sometimes patches are atta...
sometimes inlined in the text of a message. Did the auth...
patches? Did they use heuristics? How was this done. T...
selected developers who had reviewed or edited patches at...
imagine why, but it would be useful to *explain* to the r...
done and why the number 5 was chosen as the threshold. I...
committers are classified using "criteria". As a reader,...
speculate what that criteria is. This needs to be explai...
criteria is mysteriously also used in the third paragraph...
does it mean in this context?
I applaud the use of the Mann-Whitney test for examining ...
would be inappropriate because it is clearly right skewed...
author's should both explain why they used that test and ...
so that those readers less familiar with non-parametric s...
understand what is going on.
I found the results in section 5 to be interesting, but t...
suffered some problems. The four paragraphs in section 5...
of each other with names and numbers changed. That's not...
disrespectful to the reader. I rarely harp on the writin...
unclear, but I feel that in this case, the authors should...
possibly discuss the implications of each result. A simp...
the data in those paragraphs more succinctly in be more e...
Lastly, the authors claim that the analysis in this paper...
to improve the patch review process in OSS. They haven't...
their results improve this process. From the results, we...
about the relationship of timing in subsmission and revie...
within the project. I would stay away from making bold c...
the evidence to back them up.
The major flaws of unsubstantiated claims, important miss...
missing important details, and the minor flaw of some pre...
need to be addressed before this paper is accepted for pu...
---------------------------- REVIEW 2 -------------------...
- Reviewer 2
The paper presents a study of the patch review process in...
Abstract: Write "number of patch reviews" instead of "NPR"
Introduction: The authors write "In general, the modific...
Section 2: Do all emails about patches get responses? (Th...
Section 5.2.3, last paragraph: The paper writes by observ...
---------------------------- REVIEW 3 -------------------...
- Reviewer 3
This paper studies the differences between committer and ...
open-source software development. It provides a case stud...
finding the differences based on times and frequencies fo...
patches.
Overall, I liked the idea and it has the potential to be ...
OSS developers. However, the setup of the case study weak...
in this paper.
I have some points:
The authors state one of the motivations for clarifying t...
committers and non-committers is for supporting the nomin...
However, as also mentioned by the authors, the role of co...
non-committers is different; the differences may be resul...
themselves. This fact becomes stronger for projects havin...
2nd-round reviewers). To be more precise this, I think th...
non-committers should be compared with ones of committers...
promoted to committer. I want it will conclude the same; ...
is also great when they didn't have the commit permission...
clarifications are important.
The explanation of the patch review process in Section 2 ...
the process. Of course, it fits some OSS projects includi...
can easily imagine some possible variability such as: sup...
reproductions of bugs by developers/users, rejections, an...
discussions. The author should discuss which tasks are im...
and the build the process model.
Minor points:
--- The definitions of committer and non-committer are re...
* 備考・その他 [#pc140a03]
#comment
終了行:
[[ふじこ]]
* IWESEP2010 [#r79a5577]
#contents
IWESEP2010~
International Workshop on Empirical Software Engineering ...
[[http://iwesep.wordpress.com/:http://iwesep.wordpress.co...
~
- Paper Submission: October 11, 2010
- Acceptance Notification: November 8, 2010
- Camera Ready Copy: November 22, 2010
~
タイトル：An Analysis of Committers Activities in the Pat...
原稿：&attachref(IWESEP_paper_提出版.pdf);~
** 予定 [#b4efb562]
- 原稿
-- 10/11原稿提出
* 査読結果 [#n87e29b1]
rejected
---------------------------- REVIEW 1 -------------------...
- Reviewer 1
In this paper, the authors look at the process by which p...
reviewed before being accepted into an OSS project or rej...
the rate that different groups edit and review patches an...
review and edit patches. Unfortunately, there are a numb...
the paper that make it unsuitable for publication in it's...
doubt, however, that if changes are made (and I'm includi...
a revision of this paper would be of publication quality.
My biggest problem with this work is that is omits two im...
on the subject. Rigby et al published a very in depth st...
review process in Apache at ICSE 2008. Bird et al publis...
examined what factors influence someone becoming a core d...
factors examined were patch submission and acceptance), w...
of OSS projects and include PostgreSQL. The fact that th...
in the goal of these studies and that they are neither di...
authors indicate what differentiates their study from pri...
point against this paper.
The authors make a number of claims that are either incor...
unsubstantiated and do not provide references. For insta...
increasing committers speeds up development because they ...
commit directly to the project repository. In a number o...
is incorrect. Most OSS projects, still review and discus...
even if they are made by core developers. Rigby's paper ...
discussion of this phenomenon. The authors also claim th...
developer is selected as a committer through nomination a...
admirable contributions. This is correct, but a referenc...
One prime example of a good supporting reference would be...
ethnograhic study of the python project. The authors say...
easy to elect an appropriate deveoper as a committer from...
developers. Is this true? What evidence is this based o...
informed guess, then the author's should state that. The...
section 6 includes a claim that NPR, NPR, PRT, and PET ha...
select a committer depending on the state of the project ...
properties. Why? The author's have shown that there is ...
the two, but they have not examined anything about how co...
In the sixth paragraph, the authors claim that the restri...
committers is unique to PostgreSQL as opposed to other pr...
many projects that limit committers. There is no referen...
examples of projects that don't restrict committers.
I *LOVED* figure 1. This is a wonderful depiction of the...
review process and the terms used in the paper. Good job...
add is the acronyms PRT and PET since they are depicted a...
but do not appear on the figure.
The data collection is short on details. How were the pa...
my experience, I've found that sometimes patches are atta...
sometimes inlined in the text of a message. Did the auth...
patches? Did they use heuristics? How was this done. T...
selected developers who had reviewed or edited patches at...
imagine why, but it would be useful to *explain* to the r...
done and why the number 5 was chosen as the threshold. I...
committers are classified using "criteria". As a reader,...
speculate what that criteria is. This needs to be explai...
criteria is mysteriously also used in the third paragraph...
does it mean in this context?
I applaud the use of the Mann-Whitney test for examining ...
would be inappropriate because it is clearly right skewed...
author's should both explain why they used that test and ...
so that those readers less familiar with non-parametric s...
understand what is going on.
I found the results in section 5 to be interesting, but t...
suffered some problems. The four paragraphs in section 5...
of each other with names and numbers changed. That's not...
disrespectful to the reader. I rarely harp on the writin...
unclear, but I feel that in this case, the authors should...
possibly discuss the implications of each result. A simp...
the data in those paragraphs more succinctly in be more e...
Lastly, the authors claim that the analysis in this paper...
to improve the patch review process in OSS. They haven't...
their results improve this process. From the results, we...
about the relationship of timing in subsmission and revie...
within the project. I would stay away from making bold c...
the evidence to back them up.
The major flaws of unsubstantiated claims, important miss...
missing important details, and the minor flaw of some pre...
need to be addressed before this paper is accepted for pu...
---------------------------- REVIEW 2 -------------------...
- Reviewer 2
The paper presents a study of the patch review process in...
Abstract: Write "number of patch reviews" instead of "NPR"
Introduction: The authors write "In general, the modific...
Section 2: Do all emails about patches get responses? (Th...
Section 5.2.3, last paragraph: The paper writes by observ...
---------------------------- REVIEW 3 -------------------...
- Reviewer 3
This paper studies the differences between committer and ...
open-source software development. It provides a case stud...
finding the differences based on times and frequencies fo...
patches.
Overall, I liked the idea and it has the potential to be ...
OSS developers. However, the setup of the case study weak...
in this paper.
I have some points:
The authors state one of the motivations for clarifying t...
committers and non-committers is for supporting the nomin...
However, as also mentioned by the authors, the role of co...
non-committers is different; the differences may be resul...
themselves. This fact becomes stronger for projects havin...
2nd-round reviewers). To be more precise this, I think th...
non-committers should be compared with ones of committers...
promoted to committer. I want it will conclude the same; ...
is also great when they didn't have the commit permission...
clarifications are important.
The explanation of the patch review process in Section 2 ...
the process. Of course, it fits some OSS projects includi...
can easily imagine some possible variability such as: sup...
reproductions of bugs by developers/users, rejections, an...
discussions. The author should discuss which tasks are im...
and the build the process model.
Minor points:
--- The definitions of committer and non-committer are re...
* 備考・その他 [#pc140a03]
#comment
ページ名:
![[PukiWiki]](image/wadanyan.png "[PukiWiki]")
