اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدGitHub Discussions: An Exploratory Study of Early Adoption
179
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
Discussions is a new feature of GitHub for asking questions or discussing topics outside of specific Issues or Pull Requests. Before being available to all projects in December 2020, it had been tested on selected open source software projects. To understand how developers use this novel feature, how they perceive it, and how it impacts the development processes, we conducted a mixed-methods study based on early adopters of GitHub discussions from January until July 2020. We found that: (1) errors, unexpected behavior, and code reviews are prevalent discussion categories; (2) there is a positive relationship between project member involvement and discussion frequency; (3) developers consider GitHub Discussions useful but face the problem of topic duplication between Discussions and Issues; (4) Discussions play a crucial role in advancing the development of projects; and (5) positive sentiment in Discussions is more frequent than in Stack Overflow posts. Our findings are a first step towards data-informed guidance for using GitHub Discussions, opening up avenues for future work on this novel communication channel.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
Low-code software development (LCSD) is an emerging paradigm that combines minimal source code with interactive graphical interfaces to promote rapid application development. LCSD aims to democratize application development to software practitioners
with diverse backgrounds. Given that LCSD is relatively a new paradigm, it is vital to learn about the challenges developers face during their adoption of LCSD platforms. The online developer forum, Stack Overflow (SO), is popular among software developers to ask for solutions to their technical problems. We observe a growing body of posts in SO with discussions of LCSD platforms. In this paper, we present an empirical study of around 5K SO posts (questions + accepted answers) that contain discussions of nine popular LCSD platforms. We apply topic modeling on the posts to determine the types of topics discussed. We find 13 topics related to LCSD in SO. The 13 topics are grouped into four categories: Customization, Platform Adoption, Database Management, and Third-Party Integration. More than 40% of the questions are about customization, i.e., developers frequently face challenges with customizing user interfaces or services offered by LCSD platforms. The topic Dynamic Event Handling under the Customization category is the most popular (in terms of average view counts per question of the topic) as well as the most difficult. It means that developers frequently search for customization solutions such as how to attach dynamic events to a form in low-code UI, yet most (75.9%) of their questions remain without an accepted answer. We manually label 900 questions from the posts to determine the prevalence of the topics challenges across LCSD phases. We find that most of the questions are related to the development phase, and low-code developers also face challenges with automated testing.
Context: Safety analysis is a predominant activity in developing safety-critical systems. It is a highly cooperative task among multiple functional departments due to increasingly sophisticated safety-critical systems and close-knit development proce
sses. Communication occurs pervasively. Motivation: Effective communication channels among multiple functional departments influence safety analysis, quality as well as a safe product delivery. However, the use of communication channels during safety analysis is sometimes arbitrary and poses challenges. Objective: Investige the existing communication channels, their usage frequencies, their purposes and challenges during safety analysis in industry.. Method: Multiple case study of experts (survey: 39, interview: 21) in safety-critical companies including software developers, quality engineers and functional safety managers. Direct observations and documentation review were also conducted. Results: Popular communication channels during safety analysis include formal meetings, project coordination tools, documentation and telephone. Email, personal discussion, training, internal communication software and boards are also in use. Training involving safety analysis happens 1-4 times per year, while other aforementioned communication channels happen ranges from 1-4 times per day to 1-4 times per month. We summarise 28 purposes for these communication channels. Communication happens mostly for the purpose of clarifying safety requirements, fixing temporary problems, conflicts and obstacles and sharing safety knowledge. The top challenges are reported. Conclusion: During safety analysis, to use communication channels effectively and avoid challenges, a clear purpose of communication during safety analysis should be established at the beginning. To derive countermeasures of fixing the top 10 challenges are potential next steps.
In the domain of software engineering, our efforts as researchers to advise industry on which software practices might be applied most effectively are limited by our lack of evidence based information about the relationships between context and pract
ice efficacy. In order to accumulate such evidence, a model for context is required. We are in the exploratory stage of evolving a model for context for situated software practices. In this paper, we overview the evolution of our proposed model. Our analysis has exposed a lack of clarity in the meanings of terms reported in the literature. Our base model dimensions are People, Place, Product and Process. Our contributions are a deepening of our understanding of how to scope contextual factors when considering software initiatives and the proposal of an initial theoretical construct for context. Study limitations relate to a possible subjectivity in the analysis and a restricted evaluation base. In the next stage in the research, we will collaborate with academics and practitioners to formally refine the model.
In this exploratory study, we examine the possibilities of non-invasive Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) in the context of Smart Home Technology (SHT) targeted at older adults. During two workshops, one stationary, and one online via Zoom, we researche
d the insights of the end users concerning the potential of the BCI in the SHT setting. We explored its advantages and drawbacks, and the features older adults see as vital as well as the ones that they would benefit from. Apart from evaluating the participants perception of such devices during the two workshops we also analyzed some key considerations resulting from the insights gathered during the workshops, such as potential barriers, ways to mitigate them, strengths and opportunities connected to BCI. These may be useful for designing BCI interaction paradigms and pinpointing areas of interest to pursue in further studies.
On Stack Overflow, users reuse 11,926,354 external links to share the resources hosted outside the Stack Overflow website. The external links connect to the existing programming-related knowledge and extend the crowdsourced knowledge on Stack Overflo
w. Some of the external links, so-called as repeated external links, can be shared for multiple times. We observe that 82.5% of the link sharing activities (i.e., sharing links in any question, answer, or comment) on Stack Overflow share external resources, and 57.0% of the occurrences of the external links are sharing the repeated external links. However, it is still unclear what types of external resources are repeatedly shared. To help users manage their knowledge, we wish to investigate the characteristics of the repeated external links in knowledge sharing on Stack Overflow. In this paper, we analyze the repeated external links on Stack Overflow. We observe that external links that point to the text resources (hosted in documentation websites, tutorial websites, etc.) are repeatedly shared the most. We observe that: 1) different users repeatedly share the same knowledge in the form of repeated external links, thus increasing the maintenance effort of knowledge (e.g., update invalid links in multiple posts), 2) the same users can repeatedly share the external links for the purpose of promotion, and 3) external links can point to webpages with an overload of information that is difficult for users to retrieve relevant information. Our findings provide insights to Stack Overflow moderators and researchers. For example, we encourage Stack Overflow to centrally manage the commonly occurring knowledge in the form of repeated external links in order to better maintain the crowdsourced knowledge on Stack Overflow.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
