ForkXplorer: an approach of fork summary generation

doi:10.1007/S11704-020-0047-4

Frontiers of Computer Science

2022, Vol. 16

Issue (2): 162202 https://doi.org/10.1007/S11704-020-0047-4

本期目录

ForkXplorer: an approach of fork summary generation

Zhang ZHANG, Xinjun MAO(

), Chao ZHANG, Yao LU

Key Laboratory of Software Engineering for Complex Systems, College of Computer, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha 410073, China

全文: PDF(11500 KB) HTML

Abstract：

Pull-based development has become an important paradigm for distributed software development. In this model, each developer independently works on a copied repository (i.e., a fork) from the central repository. It is essential for developers to maintain awareness of the state of other forks to improve collaboration efficiency. In this paper, we propose a method to automatically generate a summary of a fork. We first use the random forest method to generate the label of a fork, i.e., feature implementation or a bug fix. Based on the information of the fork-related commits, we then use the TextRank algorithm to generate detailed activity information of the fork. Finally, we apply a set of rules to integrate all related information to construct a complete fork summary. To validate the effectiveness of our method, we conduct 30 groups of manual experiment and 77 groups of case studies on Github. We propose $F e a a v g$ to evaluate the performance of the generated fork summary, considering the content accuracy, content integrity, sentence fluency, and label extraction accuracy. The results show that the average of $F e a a v g$ of the fork summary generated by this method is 0.672. More than 63% of project maintainers and the contributors believe that the fork summary can improve development efficiency.

Key words： open source software pull-based development fork summary distributed cooperative development

收稿日期: 2020-02-02 出版日期: 2021-10-18

Corresponding Author(s): Xinjun MAO

引用本文:

. [J]. Frontiers of Computer Science, 2022, 16(2): 162202.
Zhang ZHANG, Xinjun MAO, Chao ZHANG, Yao LU. ForkXplorer: an approach of fork summary generation. Front. Comput. Sci., 2022, 16(2): 162202.

链接本文:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fcs/CN/10.1007/S11704-020-0047-4
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fcs/CN/Y2022/V16/I2/162202

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

Fig.10

Tab.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

Tab.4

Fig.11

Tab.5

Tab.6

Fig.12

Tab.7

Tab.8

Fig.13

1	Gousios G, Storey M A, Bacchelli A. Work practices and challenges in pull-based development: the contributor’s perspective. In: Proceedings of IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering. 2016, 285-296
2	Y Lu , X Mao , T Wang , G Yin , Z Li . Improving students’ programming quality with the continuous inspection process: a social coding perspective. Frontiers of Computer Science, 2020, 14( 5): 1– 18
3	J Jiang , D Lo , J He , X Xia , P S Kochhar , L Zhang . Why and how developers fork what from whom in GitHub. Empirical Software Engineering, 2017, 22( 1): 547– 578 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-016-9436-6
4	Bitzer J, Schröder P J H. The Economics of open source software development. 1st ed. Kidlington: Elsevier, 2006
5	Abdullah R, Lakulu M, Ibrahim H, Selamat M H, Nor M Z M. The challenges of open source software development with collaborative environment. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computer Technology and Development. 2009, 251-255
6	Padhye R, Mani S, Sinha V S. A study of external community contribution to open-source projects on GitHub. In: Proceedings of the Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories. 2014, 332-335
7	Ren L, Zhou S, Kästner C, Wąsowski A. Identifying redundancies in fork-based development. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering. 2019, 230-241
8	Stănciulescu Ş, Schulze S, Wąsowski A. Forked and integrated variants in an open-source firmware project. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution. 2015, 151-160
9	Ren L, Zhou S, Kästner C. Poster: Forks insight: providing an overview of GitHub forks. In: Proceedings of ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering. 2018, 179-180
10	Zhou S, Stanciulescu S, Leßenich O, Xiong Y, Wasowski A, Kästner C. Identifying features in forks. In: Proceedings of ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering. 2018, 105–116
11	Yu Y, Li Z, Yin G, Wang T, Wang H M. A dataset of duplicate pullrequests in Github. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Mining Software Repositories. 2018, 22-25
12	Zhu J, Zhou M, Mockus A. Effectiveness of code contribution: from patch-based to pull-request-based tools. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering. 2016, 871-882
13	Li L, Ren Z, Li X, Zou W, Jiang H. How are issue units linked? Empirical study on the linking behavior in GitHub. In: Proceedings of IEEE Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference. 2018, 386-395
14	Li Z, Yin G, Yu Y, Wang T, Wang H. Detecting duplicate pull-requests in github. In: Proceedings of Asia-Pacific Symposium on Internetware. 2017, 1-6
15	H Ruan , B Chen , X Peng , W Zhao . DeepLink: Recovering issuecommit links based on deep learning. Journal of Systems and Software, 2019, 158 : 110406– https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.110406
16	Sun Y, Chen C, Wang Q, Boehm, B. Improving missing issue-commit link recovery using positive and unlabeled data. In: Proceedings of IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering. 2017, 147-152
17	G Salton , A Wong , C S Yang . A vector space model for automatic indexing. Communications of the ACM, 1975, 18( 11): 613– 620 https://doi.org/10.1145/361219.361220
18	G Salton , C Buckley . Term-weighting approaches in automatic text retrieval. Information processing & management, 1988, 24( 5): 513– 523
19	James G, Witten D, Hastie T, Tibshirani R. An introduction to statistical learning. 1st ed. New York: Springer, 2013
20	Z Liu , X Chen , M Sun . Mining the interests of Chinese microbloggers via keyword extraction. Frontiers of Computer Science, 2012, 6( 1): 76– 87
21	Mihalcea R, Tarau P. Textrank: Bringing order into text. In: Proceedings of Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2004, 404-411
22	M Gambhir , V Gupta . Recent automatic text summarization techniques: a survey. Artificial Intelligence Review, 2017, 47( 1): 1– 66 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-016-9475-9
23	L Nyman , T Mikkonen . To fork or not to fork: Fork motivations in SourceForge projects. International Journal of Open Source Software and Processes, 2011, 3( 3): 1– 9 https://doi.org/10.4018/jossp.2011070101
24	Robles G, González-Barahona J M. A comprehensive study of software forks: dates, reasons and outcomes. In: Proceedings of IFIP International Conference on Open Source Systems. 2012, 1-14
25	Stănciulescu Ş, Schulze S, Wąsowski A. Forked and integrated variants in an open-source firmware project. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution. 2015, 151-160
26	Gousios G, Pinzger M, Deursen A. An exploratory study of the pullbased software development model. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Software Engineering. 2014, 345-355
27	Dabbish L, Stuart C, Tsay J, Herbsleb J. Social coding in GitHub: transparency and collaboration in an open software repository. In: Proceedings of ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 2012, 1277-1286
28	L Dabbish , C Stuart , J Tsay , J Herbsleb . Leveraging transparency. IEEE Software, 2012, 30( 1): 37– 43
29	A Kuhn , S Ducasse , T Gírba . Semantic clustering: Identifying topics in source code. Information and Software Technology, 2007, 49( 3): 230– 243 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2006.10.017
30	Murphy G C. Lightweight structural summarization as an aid to software evolution. Seattle: University of Washington, 1996
31	Poshyvanyk D, Marcus A. Combining formal concept analysis with information retrieval for concept location in source code. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension. 2007, 37-48
32	Storey M A, Cheng L T, Bull I, Rigby P. Shared waypoints and social tagging to support collaboration in software development. In: Proceedings of ACM Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 2006, 195–198
33	Khatavkar V, Kulkarni P. Comparison of support vector machines with and without latent semantic analysis for document classification. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Data Management, Analytics & Innovation. 2019, 263-274
34	N Nazar , H Jiang , G Gao , T Zhang , X Li , Z Ren . Source code fragment summarization with small-scale crowdsourcing based features. Frontiers of Computer Science, 2016, 10( 3): 504– 517 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-015-4409-2
35	Cortés-Coy L F, Linares-Vásquez M, Aponte J, Poshyvanyk, D. On automatically generating commit messages via summarization of source code changes. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation. 2014, 275-284
36	Jiang S, Armaly A, McMillan C. Automatically generating commit messages from diffs using neural machine translation. In: Proceedings of IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering. 2017, 135-146
37	Liu Z, Xia X, Hassan A E, Lo D, Xing Z, Wang X. Neural-machinetranslation-based commit message generation: how far are we? In: Proceedings of ACM/IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering. 2018, 373-384
38	Zaidi A. Summarizing git commits and Github pull requests using sequence to sequence neural attention models. California: Stanford University, 2017
39	Liu Z, Xia X, Treude C, Lo D, Li S. Automatic generation of pull request descriptions. In: Proceedings of IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering. 2019, 176-188

[1]

Highlights

Download

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed