Influence of social and technical factors for evaluating contribution in GitHub

By Jason Tsay, Laura A. Dabbish, James D. Herbsleb. International Conference on Software Engineering, 2014

458 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Work Practices and Challenges in Pull-Based Development: The Contributor's Perspective (2014, background): “In a similar quantitative study [13], Rigby and Bird analyzed branch-based code review processes in OSS and commercial systems and found that reviewed patches are generally very small while two reviewers ﬁnd an optimal number of defects.”
An in-depth study of the promises and perils of mining GitHub (2015, methodology): “Their work demonstrated that the differences between centralized version control systems (such as subversion) and git created certain challenges for those using git repositories for research.”
What's in a GitHub Star? Understanding Repository Starring Practices in a Social Coding Platform (2018, background): “For example, developers with more followers may take advantage of GitHub News Feed12, since their recent activities are shown to more developers [29].”
Quality and productivity outcomes relating to continuous integration in GitHub (2015, background): “Prior work [19, 28,45,51] suggests that the strength of the social relationship between submitter and evaluators plays an important role in contribution acceptance, and that pull requests submitted by core developers are treated preferentially.”