When Conversations Turn Into Work: A Taxonomy of Converted Discussions and Issues in GitHub

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.07117v1
• Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2023 01:46:43 GMT
• Title: When Conversations Turn Into Work: A Taxonomy of Converted Discussions and Issues in GitHub
• Authors: Dong Wang, Masanari Kondo, Yasutaka Kamei, Raula Gaikovina Kula, Naoyasu Ubayashi
• Abstract summary: GitHub released Discussion to distinguish between communication and collaboration. It remains unclear how developers maintain these channels, how trivial it is, and whether deciding on conversion takes time.
• Score: 7.754176669677791
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Popular and large contemporary open-source projects now embrace a diverse set of documentation for communication channels. Examples include contribution guidelines (i.e., commit message guidelines, coding rules, submission guidelines), code of conduct (i.e., rules and behavior expectations), governance policies, and Q&A forum. In 2020, GitHub released Discussion to distinguish between communication and collaboration. However, it remains unclear how developers maintain these channels, how trivial it is, and whether deciding on conversion takes time. We conducted an empirical study on 259 NPM and 148 PyPI repositories, devising two taxonomies of reasons for converting discussions into issues and vice-versa. The most frequent conversion from a discussion to an issue is when developers request a contributor to clarify their idea into an issue (Reporting a Clarification Request -35.1% and 34.7%, respectively), while agreeing that having non actionable topic (QA, ideas, feature requests -55.0% and 42.0%, respectively}) is the most frequent reason of converting an issue into a discussion. Furthermore, we show that not all reasons for conversion are trivial (e.g., not a bug), and raising a conversion intent potentially takes time (i.e., a median of 15.2 and 35.1 hours, respectively, taken from issues to discussions). Our work contributes to complementing the GitHub guidelines and helping developers effectively utilize the Issue and Discussion communication channels to maintain their collaboration.

Related papers

• Understanding Code Understandability Improvements in Code Reviews [79.16476505761582]
  We analyzed 2,401 code review comments from Java open-source projects on GitHub. 83.9% of suggestions for improvement were accepted and integrated, with fewer than 1% later reverted.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T12:21:23Z)
• An Empirical Study on Developers Shared Conversations with ChatGPT in GitHub Pull Requests and Issues [20.121332699827633]
  ChatGPT has significantly impacted software development practices. Despite its widespread adoption, the impact of ChatGPT as an assistant in collaborative coding remains largely unexplored. We analyze a dataset of 210 and 370 developers shared conversations with ChatGPT in GitHub pull requests (PRs) and issues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T16:58:37Z)
• Coeditor: Leveraging Contextual Changes for Multi-round Code Auto-editing [57.776971051512234]
  In this work, we explore a multi-round code auto-editing setting, aiming to predict edits to a code region based on recent changes within the same. Our model, Coeditor, is a fine-tuned language model specifically designed for code editing tasks. In a simplified single-round, single-edit task, Coeditor significantly outperforms GPT-3.5 and SOTA open-source code completion models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-29T19:57:36Z)
• Using Developer Discussions to Guide Fixing Bugs in Software [51.00904399653609]
  We propose using bug report discussions, which are available before the task is performed and are also naturally occurring, avoiding the need for additional information from developers. We demonstrate that various forms of natural language context derived from such discussions can aid bug-fixing, even leading to improved performance over using commit messages corresponding to the oracle bug-fixing commits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-11T16:37:33Z)
• Looking for related discussions on GitHub Discussions [18.688096673390586]
  GitHub Discussions is a native forum to facilitate collaborative discussions between users and members of communities hosted on the platform. As GitHub Discussions resembles PCQA forums, it faces challenges similar to those faced by such environments. While duplicate posts have the same content - and may be exact copies - near-duplicates share similar topics and information. We propose an approach based on a Sentence-BERT pre-trained model: the RD-Detector.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-23T20:41:33Z)
• QAConv: Question Answering on Informative Conversations [85.2923607672282]
  We focus on informative conversations including business emails, panel discussions, and work channels. In total, we collect 34,204 QA pairs, including span-based, free-form, and unanswerable questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-14T15:53:05Z)
• GitHub Discussions: An Exploratory Study of Early Adoption [23.844242004415406]
  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. 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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-10T02:49:03Z)
• The Influence of Domain-Based Preprocessing on Subject-Specific Clustering [55.41644538483948]
  The sudden change of moving the majority of teaching online at Universities has caused an increased amount of workload for academics. One way to deal with this problem is to cluster these questions depending on their topic. In this paper, we explore the realms of tagging data sets, focusing on identifying code excerpts and providing empirical results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-16T17:47:19Z)
• A Transfer Learning Approach for Dialogue Act Classification of GitHub Issue Comments [1.370633147306388]
  This paper presents a transfer learning approach for performing dialogue act classification on issue comments on GitHub. Since no large labeled corpus of GitHub issue comments exists, employing transfer learning enables us to leverage standard dialogue act datasets. Being able to map the issue comments to dialogue acts is a useful stepping stone towards understanding cognitive team processes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-10T02:56:18Z)
• Deep Just-In-Time Inconsistency Detection Between Comments and Source Code [51.00904399653609]
  In this paper, we aim to detect whether a comment becomes inconsistent as a result of changes to the corresponding body of code. We develop a deep-learning approach that learns to correlate a comment with code changes. We show the usefulness of our approach by combining it with a comment update model to build a more comprehensive automatic comment maintenance system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-04T16:49:28Z)
• StackOverflow vs Kaggle: A Study of Developer Discussions About Data Science [0.0]
  This paper conducts experiments to study the characteristics of 197836 posts from StackOverflow and Kaggle. The main findings include that-related topics were most prevalent in StackOverflow. Across both communities, DS discussion is increasing at a dramatic rate. ensemble algorithms are the most mentioned ML/DL algorithms in Kaggle but are rarely discussed on StackOverflow.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-06T06:51:11Z)

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.