Christian R. Prause
ABSTRACT
Determining responsibility for a piece of source code is difficult when software is being developed collaboratively with weak code ownership. Nonetheless, a major factor for preventing "cowboy coding" and careless development of code is liability. We propose a tool for statistically acquiring per developer per document accountabilities and enable learning and self-monitoring processes within a development team while maintaining anonymity to a certain degree to not endanger team spirit.
In this paper we want to examine possible social effects on the development team that employment of our tool has.
- J. Aiken. Technical and human perspectives on pair programming. SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 29(5):1--14, 2004. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- E. M. Burke and B. M. Coyner. Java Extreme Programming Cookbook. O?Reilly, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Curtis, W. E. Hefley, and S. Miller. Overview of the people capability maturity model. Technical report, SEI - Carnegie Mellon University, 1995.Google Scholar
- L. E. Deimel and M. Pozefsky. Implementation of programming standards in a computer science department. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Southeast Regional Conference. ACM Press, 1979. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Dunsmore, M. Roper, and M. Wood. Object-oriented inspection in the face of delocalisation. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Software engineering, pages 467--476, New York, NY, USA, 2000. ACM Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Elster. The Cement of Society. A Study of Social Order. Cambridge University Press, 1989.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Fagan. Design and code inspections to reduce errors in program development. IBM Systems Journal, 15(3):182--211, 1976.Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. S. Gordon. The economic theory of a common-property resource: The fishery. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 53(1/2):231--252, 1991.Google ScholarCross Ref
- W. S. Humphrey. Managing Technical People. Addison-Wesley, 1997.Google Scholar
- P. M. Johnson and D. Tjahjono. Assessing software review meetings: a controlled experimental study using csrs. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on Software engineering, pages 118--127, New York, NY, USA, 1997. ACM Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Kelly and T. Shepard. Qualitative observations from software code inspection experiments. In Conference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research, page 5. IBM Press, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Mackus, R. Fielding, and J. D. Herbsleb. Two case studies of open source software development: Apache and mozilla. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 11(3):309--346, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. McConnell. Code Complete: A Practical Handbook of Software Construction. Microsoft Press, 1993. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Navarro. A guided tour to approximate string matching. ACM Comp. Surv., 33(1):31--88, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Prause, J. Kuck, S. Apelt, R. Oppermann, and A. B. Cremers. Interconnecting documentation - harnessing the different powers of current documentation tools in software development. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, volume ISAS, pages 63--68, Setúbal, Portugal, 2007. INSTICC Press.Google Scholar
- E. M. Rogers. Diffusion of Innovations. NY, USA, fourth edition, 1995.Google Scholar
- C. B. Seaman and V. R. Basili. An empirical study of communication in code inspections. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on Software engineering, New York, NY, USA, 1997. ACM Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Spinellis. Code Quality: The Open Source Perspective. Addison Wesley, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Sutter and A. Alexandrescu. C++ Coding Standards. Addison-Wesley, 2005.Google Scholar
- A. S. Tanenbaum. Modern Operating Systems. Prentice Hall, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. von Ahn and L. Dabbish. Labeling images with a computer game. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 319--326, New York, USA, 2004. ACM Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. E. Wiegers. Peer Reviews in Software: A Practical Guide. Addison-Wesley, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Social aspects of a continuous inspection platform for software source code
Recommendations
An approach for continuous inspection of source code
WoSQ '08: Proceedings of the 6th international workshop on Software qualityWith multiple developers engaged in collaboratively writing software code, responsibility for a specific piece of code is difficult to assign. Nonetheless, responsibility is a major factor in achieving quality and preventing code from being developed ...
Code ownership and software quality: a replication study
MSR '15: Proceedings of the 12th Working Conference on Mining Software RepositoriesIn a traditional sense, ownership determines rights and duties in regard to an object, for example a property. The owner of source code usually refers to the person that invented the code. However, larger code artifacts, such as files, are usually ...
Understanding and Detecting Harmful Code
SBES '20: Proceedings of the XXXIV Brazilian Symposium on Software EngineeringCode smells typically indicate poor design implementation and choices that may degrade software quality. Hence, they need to be carefully detected to avoid such poor design. In this context, some studies try to understand the impact of code smells on the ...
Comments