skip to main content
10.1145/3611643.3616293acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

“We Feel Like We’re Winging It:” A Study on Navigating Open-Source Dependency Abandonment

Published: 30 November 2023 Publication History

Abstract

While lots of research has explored how to prevent maintainers from abandoning the open-source projects that serve as our digital infras- tructure, there are very few insights on addressing abandonment when it occurs. We argue open-source sustainability research must expand its focus beyond trying to keep particular projects alive, to also cover the sustainable use of open source by supporting users when they face potential or actual abandonment. We interviewed 33 developers who have experienced open-source dependency aban- donment. Often, they used multiple strategies to cope with aban- donment, for example, first reaching out to the community to find potential alternatives, then switching to a community-accepted alternative if one exists. We found many developers felt they had little to no support or guidance when facing abandonment, leaving them to figure out what to do through a trial-and-error process on their own. Abandonment introduces cost for otherwise seem- ingly free dependencies, but users can decide whether and how to prepare for abandonment through a number of different strategies, such as dependency monitoring, building abstraction layers, and community involvement. In many cases, community members can invest in resources that help others facing the same abandoned dependency, but often do not because of the many other competing demands on their time – a form of the volunteer’s dilemma. We dis- cuss cost reduction strategies and ideas to overcome this volunteer’s dilemma. Our findings can be used directly by open-source users seeking resources on dealing with dependency abandonment, or by researchers to motivate future work supporting the sustainable use of open source.

Supplementary Material

Video (fse23main-p436-p-video.mp4)
"While lots of research has explored how to prevent maintainers from abandoning the open-source projects that serve as our digital infrastructure, there are very few insights on addressing abandonment when it occurs. We argue open-source sustainability research must expand its focus beyond trying to keep particular projects alive, to also cover the sustainable use of open source by supporting users when they face potential or actual abandonment. We perform an interview study with 33 developers who have experienced open-source dependency abandonment and analyze the data using iterative thematic analysis. Often, multiple strategies were used to cope with abandonment, for example, first reaching out to the community to find potential alternatives, then switching to a community-accepted alternative if one exists. We found many developers felt they had little to no support or guidance when facing abandonment, leaving them to figure out what to do through a trial-and-error process on their own. Abandonment introduces cost for otherwise seemingly free dependencies, but users can decide whether and how to prepare for abandonment through a number of different strategies, such as dependency monitoring, building abstraction layers, and community involvement. In many cases, community members can invest in resources that help others facing the same abandoned dependency, but often do not because of the many other competing demands on their time – in a form of the volunteer’s dilemma. We discuss cost reduction strategies and ideas to overcome this volunteers dilemma. Our findings can be used directly by open-source users seeking resources on dealing with dependency abandonment, or by researchers to motivate future work supporting the sustainable use of open source."

References

[1]
2023. Supplementary Material for "We Feel Like We’re Winging It:" A Study on Navigating Open-Source Dependency Abandonment. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8102547
[2]
Hussein Alrubaye. 2020. How does library migration impact software quality and comprehension? an empirical study. In Proc. Int’l Conf. Software Reuse (ICSR). 245–260.
[3]
Hussein Alrubaye, Mohamed Wiem Mkaouer, and Ali Ouni. 2019. Migrationminer: An automated detection tool of third-party java library migration at the method level. In Proc. Int’l Conf. Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME).
[4]
Guilherme Avelino, Eleni Constantinou, Marco Tulio Valente, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2019. On the abandonment and survival of open source projects: an empirical investigation. In Proc. Int’l Symp. Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM). ACM Press, 1–12.
[5]
Guilherme Avelino, Leonardo Passos, Andre Hora, and Marco Tulio Valente. 2016. A novel approach for estimating truck factors. In Proc. Int’l Conf. Program Comprehension (ICPC). 1–10.
[6]
Gabriele Bavota, Gerardo Canfora, Massimiliano Di Penta, Rocco Oliveto, and Sebastiano Panichella. 2013. The evolution of project inter-dependencies in a software ecosystem: The case of apache. In Proc. Int’l Conf. Software Maintenance (ICSM). 280–289.
[7]
Andreas Blume and Andreas Ortmann. 2007. The effects of costless pre-play communication: Experimental evidence from games with Pareto-ranked equilibria. Journal of Economic theory, 132, 1 (2007), 274–290.
[8]
Christopher Bogart, Christian Kästner, James Herbsleb, and Ferdian Thung. 2016. How to break an API: cost negotiation and community values in three software ecosystems. In Proc. Int’l Symposium Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE). 109–120.
[9]
Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3, 2 (2006), 77–101.
[10]
Scott Brisson, Ehsan Noei, and Kelly Lyons. 2020. We are family: analyzing communication in GitHub software repositories and their forks. In Proc. Int’l Conf. Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER).
[11]
Chris Brown and Chris Parnin. 2019. Sorry to bother you: Designing bots for effective recommendations. In Int’l Workshop on Bots in Software Engineering.
[12]
Anthony Burton and Martin Sefton. 2004. Risk, pre-play communication and equilibrium. Games and economic behavior, 46, 1 (2004), 23–40.
[13]
Fabio Calefato, Marco Aurelio Gerosa, Giuseppe Iaffaldano, Filippo Lanubile, and Igor Steinmacher. 2022. Will you come back to contribute? Investigating the inactivity of OSS core developers in GitHub. Empirical Software Engineering.
[14]
Andrea Capiluppi, Klaas-Jan Stol, and Cornelia Boldyreff. 2012. Exploring the role of commercial stakeholders in open source software evolution. In IFIP Int’l Conf. on Open Source Systems. 178–200.
[15]
Chunyang Chen. 2020. Similarapi: mining analogical apis for library migration. In Comp. Int’l Conf. Software Engineering (ICSE). 37–40.
[16]
Kingsum Chow and David Notkin. 1996. Semi-automatic update of applications in response to library changes. In Proc. Int’l Conf. Software Maintenance (ICSM). 96, 359.
[17]
Jailton Coelho and Marco Tulio Valente. 2017. Why modern open source projects fail. In Proc. Int’l Symposium Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE).
[18]
Jailton Coelho, Marco Tulio Valente, Luciano Milen, and Luciana L Silva. 2020. Is this GitHub project maintained? Measuring the level of maintenance activity of open-source projects. Information and Software Technology (IST).
[19]
Eleni Constantinou and Tom Mens. 2017. An empirical comparison of developer retention in the RubyGems and npm software ecosystems. Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering, 13, 2 (2017), 101–115.
[20]
Russell Cooper, Douglas V DeJong, Robert Forsythe, and Thomas W Ross. 1989. Communication in the battle of the sexes game: some experimental results. The RAND Journal of Economics, 568–587.
[21]
Russell Cooper, Douglas V DeJong, Robert Forsythe, and Thomas W Ross. 1992. Communication in coordination games. The Quarterly Jrnl. of Econ.
[22]
Juliet Corbin and Anselm Strauss. 2014. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage publications.
[23]
Bradley E Cossette and Robert J Walker. 2012. Seeking the ground truth: a retroactive study on the evolution and migration of software libraries. In Proc. Int’l Symposium Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE). 1–11.
[24]
Kevin Crowston, Kangning Wei, James Howison, and Andrea Wiggins. 2008. Free/Libre open-source software development: What we know and what we do not know. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 44, 2 (2008), 1–35.
[25]
Carlo Daffara. 2012. Estimating the economic contribution of open source software to the European economy. In Proc. Openforum Academy Conf.
[26]
Cleidson RB de Souza and David F Redmiles. 2008. An empirical study of software developers’ management of dependencies and changes. In Proc. Int’l Conf. Software Engineering (ICSE). 241–250.
[27]
Alexandre Decan, Tom Mens, Maëlick Claes, and Philippe Grosjean. 2016. When GitHub meets CRAN: An analysis of inter-repository package dependency problems. In Proc. Int’l Conf. Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER).
[28]
Alexandre Decan, Tom Mens, and Eleni Constantinou. 2018. On the evolution of technical lag in the npm package dependency network. In Proc. Int’l Conf. Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME). 404–414.
[29]
Alexandre Decan, Tom Mens, and Eleni Constantinou. 2018. On the impact of security vulnerabilities in the npm package dependency network. In Proc. Conf. Mining Software Repositories (MSR). 181–191.
[30]
Andreas Diekmann. 1985. Volunteer’s dilemma. Jrnl of conflict resolution.
[31]
Danny Dig and Ralph Johnson. 2006. How do APIs evolve? A story of refactoring. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice.
[32]
Nicolas Ducheneaut. 2005. Socialization in an open source software community: A socio-technical analysis. Proc. Conf. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 14, 4 (2005), 323–368.
[33]
Nadia Eghbal. 2016. Roads and bridges: The unseen labor behind our digital infrastructure. Ford Foundation.
[34]
Fabian Fagerholm, Alejandro S Guinea, Jürgen Münch, and Jay Borenstein. 2014. The role of mentoring and project characteristics for onboarding in open source software projects. In Proc. Int’l Symp. Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM). 1–10.
[35]
Hongbo Fang, Hemank Lamba, James Herbsleb, and Bogdan Vasilescu. 2022. “This is damn slick!” Estimating the impact of tweets on open source project popularity and new contributors. In Proc. Int’l Conf. Software Engineering (ICSE).
[36]
Christoph Feldhaus and Julia Stauf. 2016. More than words: the effects of cheap talk in a volunteer’s dilemma. Experimental Economics, 19, 2 (2016), 342–359.
[37]
Fabio Ferreira, Luciana Lourdes Silva, and Marco Tulio Valente. 2020. Turnover in Open-Source Projects: The Case of Core Developers. In Proc. of Brazilian Symp. on Software Engineering. 447–456.
[38]
Isabella Ferreira, Jinghui Cheng, and Bram Adams. 2021. The “shut the f**k up” phenomenon: Characterizing incivility in open source code review discussions. Proc. of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5, CSCW2 (2021).
[39]
Nicole Forsgren. 2021. 2020 State of the Octoverse: Securing the World’s Software. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.10246.
[40]
Matthieu Foucault, Marc Palyart, Xavier Blanc, Gail C Murphy, and Jean-Rémy Falleri. 2015. Impact of developer turnover on quality in open-source software. In Proc. Europ. Software Engineering Conf./Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE). 829–841.
[41]
Jill J Francis. 2010. What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychology and Health.
[42]
Felipe Fronchetti, Igor Wiese, Gustavo Pinto, and Igor Steinmacher. 2019. What attracts newcomers to onboard on OSS projects? tl;dr: Popularity. In IFIP International Conference on Open Source Systems (OSS).
[43]
Marco Gerosa. 2021. The shifting sands of motivation: Revisiting what drives contributors in open source. In Proc. Int’l Conf. Software Engineering (ICSE). 1046–1058.
[44]
Mohammad Gharehyazie, Daryl Posnett, Bogdan Vasilescu, and Vladimir Filkov. 2015. Developer initiation and social interactions in OSS: A case study of the Apache Software Foundation. Empirical Software Engineering, 20, 5 (2015), 1318–1353.
[45]
GitHub. 2022. Exploring the dependencies of a repository. https://docs.github.com/en/code-security/supply-chain-security/understanding-your-software-supply-chain/exploring-the-dependencies-of-a-repository Accessed: 2022-09-23
[46]
Sean P Goggins, Matt Germonprez, and Kevin Lumbard. 2021. Making open source project health transparent. Computer, 54, 8 (2021), 104–111.
[47]
Georgios Gousios. 2013. The GHTorent dataset and tool suite. In Proc. Conf. Mining Software Repositories (MSR). 233–236.
[48]
Egon Guba. 1979. Naturalistic inquiry. Improving Human Performance Qtrly.
[49]
Mariam Guizani, Thomas Zimmermann, Anita Sarma, and Denae Ford. 2022. Attracting and retaining oss contributors with a maintainer dashboard. In Int’l Conf. on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society (ICSE-SEIS).
[50]
Reza Hadi Mogavi, Ehsan-Ul Haq, Sujit Gujar, Pan Hui, and Xiaojuan Ma. 2022. More Gamification Is Not Always Better: A Case Study of Promotional Gamification in a Question Answering Website. Proc. of the Human-Computer Interaction.
[51]
Hideaki Hata, Taiki Todo, Saya Onoue, and Kenichi Matsumoto. 2015. Characteristics of sustainable oss projects: A theoretical and empirical study. In Proc. Workshop Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE).
[52]
Hao He, Haonan Su, Wenxin Xiao, Runzhi He, and Minghui Zhou. 2022. GFI-bot: automated good first issue recommendation on GitHub. In Proc. Int’l Symposium Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE). ACM, 1751–1755.
[53]
A Healy and J Pate. 2009. Asymmetry and incomplete information in an experimental volunteer’s dilemma. In Int’l Congress on Modelling and Simulation.
[54]
Johannes Henkel and Amer Diwan. 2005. CatchUp! Capturing and replaying refactorings to support API evolution. In Proc. Int’l Conf. Software Engineering (ICSE). 274–283.
[55]
Qiaona Hong, Sunghun Kim, Shing Chi Cheung, and Christian Bird. 2011. Understanding a developer social network and its evolution. In Proc. Int’l Conf. Software Maintenance (ICSM). 323–332.
[56]
Yuekai Huang, Junjie Wang, Song Wang, Zhe Liu, Dandan Wang, and Qing Wang. 2021. Characterizing and Predicting Good First Issues. In Proc. Int’l Symp. Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM). 1–12.
[57]
Giuseppe Iaffaldano, Igor Steinmacher, Fabio Calefato, Marco Gerosa, and Filippo Lanubile. 2019. Why do developers take breaks from contributing to OSS projects? A preliminary analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.09528.
[58]
Daniel Izquierdo-Cortazar, Gregorio Robles, Felipe Ortega, and Jesus M Gonzalez-Barahona. 2009. Using software archaeology to measure knowledge loss in software projects due to developer turnover. In Proc. Hawaii Int’l Conf. System Sciences (HICSS). 1–10.
[59]
Anita Kopányi-Peuker. 2019. Yes, I’ll do it: A large-scale experiment on the volunteer’s dilemma. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 80 (2019), 211–218.
[60]
Raula Gaikovina Kula, Daniel M German, Ali Ouni, Takashi Ishio, and Katsuro Inoue. 2018. Do developers update their library dependencies? Empirical Software Engineering, 23, 1 (2018), 384–417.
[61]
Piergiorgio Ladisa, Henrik Plate, Matias Martinez, and Olivier Barais. 2022. Taxonomy of attacks on open-source software supply chains. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.04008.
[62]
Enrique Larios Vargas, Maurício Aniche, Christoph Treude, Magiel Bruntink, and Georgios Gousios. 2020. Selecting third-party libraries: The practitioners’ perspective. In Proc. Int’l Symposium Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE). ACM, 245–256.
[63]
Meir M Lehman. 1980. Programs, life cycles, and laws of software evolution. Proc. IEEE, 68, 9 (1980), 1060–1076.
[64]
Manny M Lehman. 1996. Laws of software evolution revisited. In European Workshop on Software Process Technology. 108–124.
[65]
Shmuel Leshem and Avraham Tabbach. 2016. Solving the Volunteer’s Dilemma: The Efficiency of Rewards Versus Punishments. American Law and Econ. Rev.
[66]
Sarah Lewis. 2015. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Health promotion practice, 16, 4 (2015), 473–475.
[67]
Bin Lin, Gregorio Robles, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2017. Developer turnover in global, industrial open source projects: Insights from applying survival analysis. In Proc. Int’l Conf. Global Software Engineering (ICGSE). 66–75.
[68]
Yvonna S Lincoln and Egon G Guba. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. sage.
[69]
Shakun D Mago and Jennifer Pate. 2022. Greed and fear: Competitive and charitable priming in a threshold volunteer’s dilemma. Economic Inquiry.
[70]
Bernd Marcus and Astrid Schütz. 2005. Who are the people reluctant to participate in research? Personality correlates of four different types of nonresponse as inferred from self-and observer ratings. Journal of personality.
[71]
Matthew B Miles, A Michael Huberman, and Johnny Saldana. 2014. Fundamentals of Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage Los Angeles, CA.
[72]
Courtney Miller, Sophie Cohen, Daniel Klug, Bogdan Vasilescu, and Christian KaUstner. 2022. “Did you miss my comment or what?” Understanding toxicity in open source discussions. In Proc. Int’l Conf. Software Engineering (ICSE).
[73]
Courtney Miller, David Gray Widder, Christian Kästner, and Bogdan Vasilescu. 2019. Why do people give up flossing? a study of contributor disengagement in open source. In IFIP International Conference on Open Source Systems.
[74]
Suhaib Mujahid, Rabe Abdalkareem, and Emad Shihab. 2022. What are the characteristics of highly-selected packages? A case study on the npm ecosystem. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.04562.
[75]
Suhaib Mujahid, Diego Elias Costa, Rabe Abdalkareem, Emad Shihab, Mohamed Aymen Saied, and Bram Adams. 2021. Toward using package centrality trend to identify packages in decline. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Mgmt.
[76]
Mathieu Nassif and Martin P Robillard. 2017. Revisiting turnover-induced knowledge loss in software projects. In Proc. Int’l Conf. Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME). 261–272.
[77]
Lorelli S Nowell, Jill M Norris, Deborah E White, and Nancy J Moules. 2017. Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International journal of qualitative methods, 16, 1 (2017), 1609406917733847.
[78]
npm Docs. 2022. npm-deprecate. https://docs.npmjs.com/cli/v6/commands/npm-deprecate#synopsis Accessed: 2022-07-07
[79]
npm Inc. 2018. This year in JavaScript: 2018 in review and npm’s predictions for 2019. https://medium.com/npm-inc/this-year-in-javascript-2018-in-review-and-npms-predictions-for-2019-3a3d7e5298ef Accessed: 2022-08-19
[80]
Rick Ossendrijver, Stephan Schroevers, and Clemens Grelck. 2022. Towards automated library migrations with error prone and refaster. In Proc. Symp. Applied Computing (SAC). 1598–1606.
[81]
David Lorge Parnas. 1994. Software aging. In Proc. Int’l Conf. Software Engineering (ICSE).
[82]
Jeff H Perkins. 2005. Automatically generating refactorings to support API evolution. In Proc. Workshop on Program Analysis for Software Tools and Engineering.
[83]
Gustavo Pinto, Igor Steinmacher, and Marco Aurélio Gerosa. 2016. More common than you think: An in-depth study of casual contributors. In Proc. Int’l Conf. Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER).
[84]
Gauthami Polasani. 2022. Announcing the private beta of FOSSA Risk Intelligence. https://fossa.com/blog/announcing-private-beta-risk-intelligence/
[85]
Gede Artha Azriadi Prana. 2021. Out of sight, out of mind? How vulnerable dependencies affect open-source projects. Empirical Software Engineering.
[86]
Huilian Sophie Qiu. 2019. Going farther together: The impact of social capital on sustained participation in open source. In Proc. Int’l Conf. Software Engineering (ICSE). 688–699.
[87]
Huilian Sophie Qiu, Yucen Lily Li, Susmita Padala, Anita Sarma, and Bogdan Vasilescu. 2019. The signals that potential contributors look for when choosing open-source projects. Proc. of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction.
[88]
Peter C Rigby, Yue Cai Zhu, Samuel M Donadelli, and Audris Mockus. 2016. Quantifying and mitigating turnover-induced knowledge loss: case studies of Chrome and a project at Avaya. In Proc. Int’l Conf. Software Engineering (ICSE).
[89]
Romain Robbes, Mircea Lungu, and David Röthlisberger. 2012. How do developers react to API deprecation? The case of a Smalltalk ecosystem. In Proc. Int’l Symposium Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE). 1–11.
[90]
Steven G Rogelberg. 2003. Profiling active and passive nonrespondents to an organizational survey. Jrnl. of Applied Psych.
[91]
Stephen R. Schach, Bo Jin, David R. Wright, Gillian Z. Heller, and A. Jefferson Offutt. 2002. Maintainability of the Linux kernel. IEE Proceedings-Software.
[92]
Naomichi Shimada, Tao Xiao, Hideaki Hata, Christoph Treude, and Kenichi Matsumoto. 2022. GitHub Sponsors: exploring a new way to contribute to open source. In Proc. Int’l Conf. Software Engineering (ICSE). ACM, 1058–1069.
[93]
Vandana Singh, Brice Bongiovanni, and William Brandon. 2022. Codes of conduct in Open Source Software—for warm and fuzzy feelings or equality in community? Software Quality Journal, 30, 2 (2022), 581–620.
[94]
Igor Steinmacher, Tayana Conte, Marco Aurélio Gerosa, and David Redmiles. 2015. Social barriers faced by newcomers placing their first contribution in open source software projects. In Proc. Conf. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). 1379–1392.
[95]
Igor Steinmacher, Tayana Uchoa Conte, Christoph Treude, and Marco Aurélio Gerosa. 2016. Overcoming open source project entry barriers with a portal for newcomers. In Proc. Int’l Conf. Software Engineering (ICSE).
[96]
Igor Steinmacher, Marco Aurelio Graciotto Silva, Marco Aurelio Gerosa, and David Redmiles. 2015. A systematic literature review on the barriers faced by newcomers to open source software projects. Information and Software Tech.
[97]
Igor Steinmacher, Christoph Treude, and Marco Aurelio Gerosa. 2018. Let me in: Guidelines for the successful onboarding of newcomers to open source projects. IEEE Software, 36, 4 (2018), 41–49.
[98]
Cedric Teyton, Jean-Remy Falleri, and Xavier Blanc. 2012. Mining library migration graphs. In Conf. on Reverse Engineering. 289–298.
[99]
Cédric Teyton, Jean-Rémy Falleri, Marc Palyart, and Xavier Blanc. 2014. A study of library migrations in java. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process.
[100]
Martin Thoma. 2021. Dependency vendoring. https://medium.com/plain-and-simple/dependency-vendoring-dd765be75655 Accessed: 2022-08-04
[101]
Parastou Tourani, Bram Adams, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2017. Code of conduct in open source projects. In Proc. Int’l Conf. Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER). 24–33.
[102]
Asher Trockman, Shurui Zhou, Christian Kästner, and Bogdan Vasilescu. 2018. Adding sparkle to social coding: an empirical study of repository badges in the npm ecosystem. In Proc. Int’l Conf. Software Engineering (ICSE). 511–522.
[103]
Jason Tsay, Laura Dabbish, and James Herbsleb. 2014. Influence of social and technical factors for evaluating contribution in GitHub. In Proc. Int’l Conf. Software Engineering (ICSE).
[104]
Jason Tsay, Laura Dabbish, and James Herbsleb. 2014. Let’s talk about it: evaluating contributions through discussion in GitHub. In Proc. Int’l Symposium Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE). 144–154.
[105]
Marat Valiev, Bogdan Vasilescu, and James Herbsleb. 2018. Ecosystem-level determinants of sustained activity in open-source projects: A case study of the PyPI ecosystem. In Proc. Europ. Software Engineering Conf./Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE). 644–655.
[106]
Georg Von Krogh, Sebastian Spaeth, and Karim Lakhani. 2003. Community, joining, and specialization in open source software innovation: a case study. Research Policy.
[107]
Wikipedia. 2022. Volunteer’s Dilemma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteer’s_dilemma Accessed: 2022-09-11
[108]
Ling Wu, Qian Wu, Guangtai Liang, Qianxiang Wang, and Zhi Jin. 2015. Transforming code with compositional mappings for API-library switching. In Conf. Computer Software and Applications. 2, 316–325.
[109]
Wenxin Xiao. 2022. Recommending good first issues in GitHub OSS projects. In Proc. Int’l Conf. Software Engineering (ICSE).
[110]
Liguo Yu, Stephen R Schach, and Kai Chen. 2005. Measuring the maintainability of open-source software. In Empirical Software Engineering.
[111]
Nusrat Zahan. 2022. What are weak links in the NPM supply chain? In Proc. Int’l Conf. Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice (ICSE-SEIP).
[112]
Xunhui Zhang. 2022. Who, what, why and how? towards the monetary incentive in crowd collaboration: A case study of GiHhub’s sponsor mechanism. In Proc. Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI). ACM, 1–18.
[113]
Minghui Zhou and Audris Mockus. 2014. Who will stay in the FLOSS community? Modeling participant’s initial behavior. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. (TSE).
[114]
Yuming Zhou and Baowen Xu. 2008. Predicting the maintainability of open source software using design metrics. Wuhan University Jrnl. of Natural Sciences.

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
ESEC/FSE 2023: Proceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering
November 2023
2215 pages
ISBN:9798400703270
DOI:10.1145/3611643
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 30 November 2023

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Dependency Management
  2. Human Factors in Software Engineering
  3. Open Source Sustainability

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

  • NSF
  • NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program

Conference

ESEC/FSE '23
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 112 of 543 submissions, 21%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)298
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)53
Reflects downloads up to 14 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Get Access

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media