Understanding the Helpfulness of Stale Bot for Pull-based Development: An Empirical Study of 20 Large Open-Source Projects

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.18150v1
• Date: Mon, 29 May 2023 15:25:06 GMT
• Title: Understanding the Helpfulness of Stale Bot for Pull-based Development: An Empirical Study of 20 Large Open-Source Projects
• Abstract summary: Stale bot was introduced by GitHub to automatically track, follow up, and close such inactive PRs. We perform an empirical study of 20 large and popular open-source projects. We find that Stale bot can help deal with a backlog of unresolved PRs as the projects closed more PRs within the first few months of adoption. However, Stale bot can also negatively affect the contributors as the projects experienced a considerable decrease in their number of active contributors after the adoption.
• Score: 5.0760915931572
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Pull Requests (PRs) that are neither progressed nor resolved clutter the list of PRs, making it difficult for the maintainers to manage and prioritize unresolved PRs. To automatically track, follow up, and close such inactive PRs, Stale bot was introduced by GitHub. Despite its increasing adoption, there are ongoing debates on whether using Stale bot alleviates or exacerbates the problem of inactive PRs. To better understand if and how Stale bot helps projects in their pull-based development workflow, we perform an empirical study of 20 large and popular open-source projects. We find that Stale bot can help deal with a backlog of unresolved PRs as the projects closed more PRs within the first few months of adoption. Moreover, Stale bot can help improve the efficiency of the PR review process as the projects reviewed PRs that ended up merged and resolved PRs that ended up closed faster after the adoption. However, Stale bot can also negatively affect the contributors as the projects experienced a considerable decrease in their number of active contributors after the adoption. Therefore, relying solely on Stale bot to deal with inactive PRs may lead to decreased community engagement and an increased probability of contributor abandonment.

Related papers

• On the Footprints of Reviewer Bots Feedback on Agentic Pull Requests in OSS GitHub Repositories [2.155083987188202]
  This study investigates the relationship between reviewer-bot feedback and PR outcomes.<n>We analyze 7,416 reviewer-bot comments on 4,532 PRs from the AI_Dev dataset.<n>Our results show that reviewer-bot comments mainly focus on bug fixes, testing, and documentation, are civil in tone, and are prescriptive in nature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-27T13:17:13Z)
• Babbling Suppression: Making LLMs Greener One Token at a Time [46.879983975894135]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in modern software development.<n>LLMs produce extraneous output, referred to as "babbling", which incurs additional cognitive, economic, and energy costs.<n>This work proposes a practical, model-agnostic approach to reduce unnecessary output without compromising solution accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-08T07:21:02Z)
• Why Are AI Agent Involved Pull Requests (Fix-Related) Remain Unmerged? An Empirical Study [5.127121704630949]
  We analyze 8,106 fix related PRs authored by five widely used AI coding agents from the AIDEV POP dataset.<n>Our results indicate that test case failures and prior resolution of the same issues by other PRs are the most common causes of non integration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T22:06:58Z)
• Where Do AI Coding Agents Fail? An Empirical Study of Failed Agentic Pull Requests in GitHub [5.808464460707249]
  We conduct a large-scale study of 33k agent-authored PRs made by five coding agents across GitHub.<n>We first quantitatively characterize merged and not-merged PRs along four broad dimensions.<n>Not-merged PRs tend to involve larger code changes, touch more files, and often do not pass the project's CI/CD pipeline validation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T17:12:46Z)
• Why Authors and Maintainers Link (or Don't Link) Their PyPI Libraries to Code Repositories and Donation Platforms [83.16077040470975]
  Metadata of libraries on the Python Package Index (PyPI) plays a critical role in supporting the transparency, trust, and sustainability of open-source libraries.<n>This paper presents a large-scale empirical study combining two targeted surveys sent to 50,000 PyPI authors and maintainers.<n>We analyze more than 1,400 responses using large language model (LLM)-based topic modeling to uncover key motivations and barriers related to linking repositories and donation platforms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T16:13:57Z)
• Rerank Before You Reason: Analyzing Reranking Tradeoffs through Effective Token Cost in Deep Search Agents [50.212640395029744]
  We study how to allocate reasoning budget in deep search pipelines.<n>Using the BrowseComp-Plus benchmark, we analyze tradeoffs between model scale, reasoning effort, reranking depth, and total token cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-20T18:38:35Z)
• On Autopilot? An Empirical Study of Human-AI Teaming and Review Practices in Open Source [11.412808537439973]
  We investigated project-level guidelines and developers' interactions with AI-assisted pull requests (PRs)<n>We found that over 67.5% of AI-co-authored PRs originate from contributors without prior code ownership.<n>In contrast to human-created PRs where non-owner developers receive the most feedback, AI-co-authored PRs from non-owners receive the least.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-20T09:09:53Z)
• Think in Parallel, Answer as One: Logit Averaging for Open-Ended Reasoning [102.13989674248116]
  ThinkMerge is a training-free, plug-and-play decoding strategy.<n>It runs K parallel reasoning traces and averages their next-token logits at synchronization points to produce a single coherent output.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-02T15:35:31Z)
• AutoPR: Let's Automate Your Academic Promotion! [50.929742814819036]
  We introduce Automatic Promotion (AutoPR), a novel task that transforms research papers into accurate, engaging, and timely public content.<n>PRAgent is a multi-agent framework that automates AutoPR in three stages: content extraction, collaborative synthesis, and platform-specific adaptation to optimize norms, tone, and tagging for maximum reach.<n>Our results position AutoPR as a tractable, measurable research problem and provide a roadmap for scalable, impactful automated scholarly communication.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-10T17:08:36Z)
• Analyzing the Usage of Donation Platforms for PyPI Libraries [91.97201077607862]
  This study analyzes the adoption of donation platforms in the PyPI ecosystem. GitHub Sponsors is the dominant platform, though many PyPI-listed links are outdated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-11T10:27:31Z)
• Bidirectional Decoding: Improving Action Chunking via Closed-Loop Resampling [51.38330727868982]
  Bidirectional Decoding (BID) is a test-time inference algorithm that bridges action chunking with closed-loop operations. We show that BID boosts the performance of two state-of-the-art generative policies across seven simulation benchmarks and two real-world tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-30T15:39:34Z)
• What Can Natural Language Processing Do for Peer Review? [173.8912784451817]
  In modern science, peer review is widely used, yet it is hard, time-consuming, and prone to error. Since the artifacts involved in peer review are largely text-based, Natural Language Processing has great potential to improve reviewing. We detail each step of the process from manuscript submission to camera-ready revision, and discuss the associated challenges and opportunities for NLP assistance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-10T16:06:43Z)
• Generative AI for Pull Request Descriptions: Adoption, Impact, and Developer Interventions [11.620351603683496]
  GitHub's Copilot for Pull Requests (PRs) is a promising service aiming to automate various developer tasks related to PRs. In this study, we examine 18,256 PRs in which parts of the descriptions were crafted by generative AI. Our findings indicate that Copilot for PRs, though in its infancy, is seeing a marked uptick in adoption.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-14T06:20:57Z)
• SERL: A Software Suite for Sample-Efficient Robotic Reinforcement Learning [85.21378553454672]
  We develop a library containing a sample efficient off-policy deep RL method, together with methods for computing rewards and resetting the environment. We find that our implementation can achieve very efficient learning, acquiring policies for PCB board assembly, cable routing, and object relocation. These policies achieve perfect or near-perfect success rates, extreme robustness even under perturbations, and exhibit emergent robustness recovery and correction behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-29T10:01:10Z)
• User-Centric Deployment of Automated Program Repair at Bloomberg [13.994851524965016]
  This paper presents a novel approach to optimally time, target, and present auto-generated patches to software engineers. We use GitHub's Suggested Changes interface to seamlessly integrate automated suggestions into pull requests. From our user study, B-Assist's efficacy is evident, with the acceptance rate of patch suggestions being as high as 74.56%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-17T13:39:48Z)
• Suggestion Bot: Analyzing the Impact of Automated Suggested Changes on Code Reviews [2.773900417167691]
  We created a bot called SUGGESTION BOT to automatically review the code base using GitHub's suggested changes functionality. We evaluate SUGGESTION BOT concerning its impact on review time and also analyze whether the comments given by the bot are clear and useful for users.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-10T17:33:43Z)
• A Survey for Efficient Open Domain Question Answering [51.67110249787223]
  Open domain question answering (ODQA) is a longstanding task aimed at answering factual questions from a large knowledge corpus without any explicit evidence in natural language processing (NLP)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-15T04:18:53Z)
• GitHub Actions: The Impact on the Pull Request Process [7.047566396769727]
  This study investigates how projects use GitHub Actions, what the developers discuss about them, and how project activity indicators change after their adoption. Our results indicate that 1,489 out of 5,000 most popular repositories (almost 30% of our sample) adopt GitHub Actions. Our findings also suggest that the adoption of GitHub Actions leads to more rejections of pull requests (PRs), more communication in accepted PRs and less communication in rejected PRs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-28T16:24:17Z)
• Identification of Twitter Bots based on an Explainable ML Framework: the US 2020 Elections Case Study [72.61531092316092]
  This paper focuses on the design of a novel system for identifying Twitter bots based on labeled Twitter data. Supervised machine learning (ML) framework is adopted using an Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) algorithm. Our study also deploys Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) for explaining the ML model predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-08T14:12:24Z)
• A ground-truth dataset and classification model for detecting bots in GitHub issue and PR comments [70.1864008701113]
  Bots are used in Github repositories to automate repetitive activities that are part of the distributed software development process. This paper proposes a ground-truth dataset, based on a manual analysis with high interrater agreement, of pull request and issue comments in 5,000 distinct Github accounts. We propose an automated classification model to detect bots, taking as main features the number of empty and non-empty comments of each account, the number of comment patterns, and the inequality between comments within comment patterns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-07T09:30:52Z)
• Perception and Acceptance of an Autonomous Refactoring Bot [11.908989544044998]
  We deployed an autonomous bot for 41 days in a student software development project. We conducted semi-structured interviews to find out how developers perceive the bot and whether they are more or less critical when reviewing the contributions of a bot compared to human contributions. Our findings show that the bot was perceived as a useful and unobtrusive contributor, and developers were no more critical of it than they were about their human colleagues, but only a few team members felt responsible for the bot.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-08T14:47:54Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.