Comparative case studies of open source software peer review practices |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. College of Information Sciences and Technology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA;2. Department of Information and Library Science, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA;1. Key Laboratory for Green Chemical Technology of Ministry of Education, School of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China;2. Collaborative Innovation Center of Chemical Science and Engineering (Tianjin), Tianjin 300072, China;3. State Key Laboratory of Separation Membranes and Membrane Processes, School of Materials Science and Engineering, Tianjin Polytechnic University, Tianjin 300387, China;4. Key Laboratory of Nuclear Analysis Techniques, Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China;1. Department of Energy Engineering, College of Engineering, Hanyang University, Seoul 133-791, Republic of Korea;2. Fuel Cell Research Center, Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST), Seoul 136-791, Republic of Korea;3. Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, New York State Center for Polymer Synthesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 12180, United States;1. A. Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Faculty of Chemistry, Umultowska 89b, Poznań, Poland;2. Institute of Molecular Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Smoluchowskiego 17, Poznań, Poland;1. School of Chemical Engineering and Energy, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, PR China;2. Shanghai Advanced Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201210, PR China;3. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100039, PR China |
| |
| Abstract: | ContextThe power of open source software peer review lies in the involvement of virtual communities, especially users who typically do not have a formal role in the development process. As communities grow to a certain extent, how to organize and support the peer review process becomes increasingly challenging. A universal solution is likely to fail for communities with varying characteristics.ObjectiveThis paper investigates differences of peer review practices across different open source software communities, especially the ones engage distinct types of users, in order to offer contextualized guidance for developing open source software projects.MethodComparative case studies were conducted in two well-established large open source communities, Mozilla and Python, which engage extremely different types of users. Bug reports from their bug tracking systems were examined primarily, complemented by secondary sources such as meeting notes, blog posts, messages from mailing lists, and online documentations.ResultsThe two communities differ in the key activities of peer review processes, including different characteristics with respect to bug reporting, design decision making, to patch development and review. Their variances also involve the designs of supporting technology. The results highlight the emerging role of triagers, who bridge the core and peripheral contributors and facilitate the peer review process. The two communities demonstrate alternative designs of open source software peer review and their tradeoffs were discussed.ConclusionIt is concluded that contextualized designs of social and technological solutions to open source software peer review practices are important. The two cases can serve as learning resources for open source software projects, or other types of large software projects in general, to cope with challenges of leveraging enormous contributions and coordinating core developers. It is also important to improve support for triagers, who have not received much research effort yet. |
| |
| Keywords: | Open source software Virtual community Software peer review Design |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
