research-article

The "Shut the f**k up" Phenomenon: Characterizing Incivility in Open Source Code Review Discussions

Authors:

Isabella Ferreira,

Bram AdamsAuthors Info & Claims

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Volume 5, Issue CSCW2

Article No.: 353, Pages 1 - 35

https://doi.org/10.1145/3479497

Published: 18 October 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Code review is an important quality assurance activity for software development. Code review discussions among developers and maintainers can be heated and sometimes involve personal attacks and unnecessary disrespectful comments, demonstrating, therefore, incivility. Although incivility in public discussions has received increasing attention from researchers in different domains, the knowledge about the characteristics, causes, and consequences of uncivil communication is still very limited in the context of software development, and more specifically, code review. To address this gap in the literature, we leverage the mature social construct of incivility as a lens to understand confrontational conflicts in open source code review discussions. For that, we conducted a qualitative analysis on 1,545 emails from the Linux Kernel Mailing List (LKML) that were associated with rejected changes. We found that more than half (66.66%) of the non-technical emails included uncivil features. Particularly, frustration, name calling, and impatience are the most frequent features in uncivil emails. We also found that there are civil alternatives to address arguments, while uncivil comments can potentially be made by any people when discussing any topic. Finally, we identified various causes and consequences of such uncivil communication. Our work serves as the first study about the phenomenon of in(civility) in open source software development, paving the road for a new field of research about collaboration and communication in the context of software engineering activities.

References

[1]

Toufique Ahmed, Amiangshu Bosu, Anindya Iqbal, and Shahram Rahimi. 2017. SentiCR: a customized sentiment analysis tool for code review interactions. In 2017 32nd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE). IEEE, 106--111.

[2]

Adam Alami, Marisa Leavitt Cohn, and Andrzej Wka sowski. 2019. Why does code review work for open source software communities?. In 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 1073--1083.

Digital Library

[3]

Shaosong Ou Alexander Hars. 2002. Working for free? Motivations for participating in open-source projects. International journal of electronic commerce, Vol. 6, 3 (2002), 25--39.

[4]

Ashley A Anderson, Dominique Brossard, Dietram A Scheufele, Michael A Xenos, and Peter Ladwig. 2014. The ?nasty effect:" Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 19, 3 (2014), 373--387.

Digital Library

[5]

Jo Angouri and Miriam A Locher. 2012. Theorising disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 44, 12 (2012), 1549--1553.

[6]

A. Bacchelli and C. Bird. 2013. Expectations, outcomes, and challenges of modern code review. In 2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). 712--721.

[7]

Teresa M Bejan. 2017. Mere Civility .Harvard University Press.

[8]

Nicolas Bettenburg, Emad Shihab, and Ahmed E Hassan. 2009. An empirical study on the risks of using off-the-shelf techniques for processing mailing list data. In 2009 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance. IEEE, 539--542.

[9]

Gary Blau and Lynne Andersson. 2005. Testing a measure of instigated workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 78, 4 (2005), 595--614.

[10]

A. Bosu, J. C. Carver, C. Bird, J. Orbeck, and C. Chockley. 2017. Process Aspects and Social Dynamics of Contemporary Code Review: Insights from Open Source Development and Industrial Practice at Microsoft. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 43, 1 (2017), 56--75.

Digital Library

[11]

Deborah Jordan Brooks and John G Geer. 2007. Beyond negativity: The effects of incivility on the electorate. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 51, 1 (2007), 1--16.

[12]

Michael Buckland and Fredric Gey. 1994. The relationship between recall and precision. Journal of the American society for information science, Vol. 45, 1 (1994), 12--19.

Digital Library

[13]

Fabio Calefato, Filippo Lanubile, Federico Maiorano, and Nicole Novielli. 2018. Sentiment polarity detection for software development. Empirical Software Engineering, Vol. 23, 3 (2018), 1352--1382.

Digital Library

[14]

Nitesh V Chawla, Kevin W Bowyer, Lawrence O Hall, and W Philip Kegelmeyer. 2002. SMOTE: synthetic minority over-sampling technique. Journal of artificial intelligence research, Vol. 16 (2002), 321--357.

[15]

J. Cheng and J. L. C. Guo. 2019. Activity-Based Analysis of Open Source Software Contributors: Roles and Dynamics. In 2019 IEEE/ACM 12th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE). 11--18.

[16]

Kevin Coe, Kate Kenski, and Stephen A Rains. 2014. Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, Vol. 64, 4 (2014), 658--679.

[17]

Jonathan Corbet. 2018. A farewell to email. https://lwn.net/Articles/768483/ Accessed: 2020--10--15.

[18]

F. Ebert, F. Castor, N. Novielli, and A. Serebrenik. 2019. Confusion in Code Reviews: Reasons, Impacts, and Coping Strategies. In 2019 IEEE 26th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER). 49--60.

[19]

Carolyn D. Egelman, Emerson Murphy-Hill, Elizabeth Kammer, Margaret Morrow Hodges, Collin Green, Ciera Jaspan, and James Lin. 2020. Predicting Developers' Negative Feelings about Code Review. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering (Seoul, South Korea) (ICSE '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 174--185. https://doi.org/10.1145/3377811.3380414

Digital Library

[20]

Ikram El Asri, Noureddine Kerzazi, Gias Uddin, Foutse Khomh, and MA Janati Idrissi. 2019. An empirical study of sentiments in code reviews. Information and Software Technology, Vol. 114 (2019), 37--54.

Digital Library

[21]

Isabella Ferreira, Kate Stewart, Daniel German, and Bram Adams. 2019. A longitudinal study on the maintainers' sentiment of a large scale open source ecosystem. In 2019 IEEE/ACM 4th International Workshop on Emotion Awareness in Software Engineering (SEmotion). IEEE, 17--22.

Digital Library

[22]

Anna Filippova and Hichang Cho. 2015. Mudslinging and Manners: Unpacking Conflict in Free and Open Source Software. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (CSCW '15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1393--1403. https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675254

Digital Library

[23]

Anna Filippova and Hichang Cho. 2016. The Effects and Antecedents of Conflict in Free and Open Source Software Development. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (San Francisco, California, USA) (CSCW '16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 705--716. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2820018

Digital Library

[24]

Pier Massimo Forni. 2010. Choosing civility: The twenty-five rules of considerate conduct .St. Martin's Press.

[25]

Kim L Fridkin and Patrick J Kenney. 2008. The dimensions of negative messages. American Politics Research, Vol. 36, 5 (2008), 694--723.

[26]

Daviti Gachechiladze, Filippo Lanubile, Nicole Novielli, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2017. Anger and its direction in collaborative software development. In 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering: New Ideas and Emerging Technologies Results Track (ICSE-NIER). IEEE, 11--14.

Digital Library

[27]

Michael J Gallivan. 2001. Striking a balance between trust and control in a virtual organization: a content analysis of open source software case studies. Information Systems Journal, Vol. 11, 4 (2001), 277--304.

[28]

Kazuki Hamasaki, Raula Gaikovina Kula, Norihiro Yoshida, AE Camargo Cruz, Kenji Fujiwara, and Hajimu Iida. 2013. Who does what during a code review? datasets of oss peer review repositories. In 2013 10th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR). IEEE, 49--52.

[29]

Austin Z Henley, KIvancc Mucc lu, Maria Christakis, Scott D Fleming, and Christian Bird. 2018. Cfar: A tool to increase communication, productivity, and review quality in collaborative code reviews. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--13.

Digital Library

[30]

Guido Hertel, Sven Niedner, and Stefanie Herrmann. 2003. Motivation of software developers in Open Source projects: an Internet-based survey of contributors to the Linux kernel. Research policy, Vol. 32, 7 (2003), 1159--1177.

[31]

H. Hosseini, S. Kannan, B. Zhang, and R. Poovendran. 2017. Deceiving google's perspective api built for detecting toxic comments. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08138 (2017).

[32]

Wenjian Huang, Tun Lu, Haiyi Zhu, Guo Li, and Ning Gu. 2016. Effectiveness of Conflict Management Strategies in Peer Review Process of Online Collaboration Projects. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (San Francisco, California, USA) (CSCW '16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 717--728. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2819950

Digital Library

[33]

IBM. [n.d.]. Watson Natural Language Understanding. https://www.ibm.com/cloud/watson-natural-language-understanding

[34]

Md Rakibul Islam and Minhaz F Zibran. 2018. SentiStrength-SE: Exploiting domain specificity for improved sentiment analysis in software engineering text. Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 145 (2018), 125--146.

[35]

Gaeul Jeong, Sunghun Kim, Thomas Zimmermann, and Kwangkeun Yi. 2009. Improving code review by predicting reviewers and acceptance of patches. Research on software analysis for error-free computing center Tech-Memo (ROSAEC MEMO 2009-006) (2009), 1--18.

[36]

Yujuan Jiang, Bram Adams, and Daniel M German. 2013. Will my patch make it? and how fast?: Case study on the linux kernel. In Proceedings of the 10th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR). IEEE Press, 101--110.

Digital Library

[37]

Yujuan Jiang, Bram Adams, Foutse Khomh, and Daniel M German. 2014. Tracing back the history of commits in low-tech reviewing environments: a case study of the linux kernel. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. 1--10.

Digital Library

[38]

Robbert Jongeling, Proshanta Sarkar, Subhajit Datta, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2017. On negative results when using sentiment analysis tools for software engineering research. Empirical Software Engineering, Vol. 22, 5 (2017), 2543--2584.

Digital Library

[39]

Kate Kenski, Kevin Coe, and Stephen A Rains. 2020. Perceptions of uncivil discourse online: An examination of types and predictors. Communication Research, Vol. 47, 6 (2020), 795--814.

[40]

Tae Kyun Kim. 2015. T test as a parametric statistic. Korean journal of anesthesiology, Vol. 68, 6 (2015), 540.

[41]

Bin Lin, Fiorella Zampetti, Gabriele Bavota, Massimiliano Di Penta, Michele Lanza, and Rocco Oliveto. 2018. Sentiment analysis for software engineering: How far can we go?. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering. 94--104.

Digital Library

[42]

Wu Liu, Shu-Cheng Steve Chi, Ray Friedman, and Ming-Hong Tsai. 2009. Explaining incivility in the workplace: The effects of personality and culture. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, Vol. 2, 2 (2009), 164--184.

[43]

Robert Love. 2010. Linux kernel development .Pearson Education.

[44]

Suman Kalyan Maity, Aishik Chakraborty, Pawan Goyal, and Animesh Mukherjee. 2018. Opinion conflicts: An effective route to detect incivility in Twitter. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 2, CSCW (2018), 1--27.

Digital Library

[45]

Nora McDonald, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Andrea Forte. 2019. Reliability and inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: Norms and guidelines for CSCW and HCI practice. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 3, CSCW (2019), 1--23.

Digital Library

[46]

Mary L McHugh. 2013. The chi-square test of independence. Biochemia medica, Vol. 23, 2 (2013), 143--149.

[47]

Roc'io Galarza Molina and Freddie J Jennings. 2018. The role of civility and metacommunication in Facebook discussions. Communication studies, Vol. 69, 1 (2018), 42--66.

[48]

Nicole Novielli, Fabio Calefato, Davide Dongiovanni, Daniela Girardi, and Filippo Lanubile. 2020. Can we use se-specific sentiment analysis tools in a cross-platform setting?. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories. 158--168.

Digital Library

[49]

Nicole Novielli, Fabio Calefato, and Filippo Lanubile. 2015. The challenges of sentiment detection in the social programmer ecosystem. In Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Social Software Engineering. 33--40.

Digital Library

[50]

Nicole Novielli, Fabio Calefato, Filippo Lanubile, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2021. Assessment of off-the-shelf SE-specific sentiment analysis tools: An extended replication study. Empirical Software Engineering, Vol. 26, 4 (2021), 1--29.

Digital Library

[51]

Zizi Papacharissi. 2004. Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New media & society, Vol. 6, 2 (2004), 259--283.

[52]

Luca Pascarella, Davide Spadini, Fabio Palomba, Magiel Bruntink, and Alberto Bacchelli. 2018. Information Needs in Contemporary Code Review. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 2, CSCW, Article 135 (Nov. 2018), 27 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274404

Digital Library

[53]

Naveen Raman, Minxuan Cao, Yulia Tsvetkov, Christian K"astner, and Bogdan Vasilescu. 2020. Stress and Burnout in Open Source: Toward Finding, Understanding, and Mitigating Unhealthy Interactions. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering: New Ideas and Emerging Results (Seoul, South Korea) (ICSE-NIER '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 57--60. https://doi.org/10.1145/3377816.3381732

Digital Library

[54]

P. Rigby, D. German, and M. Storey. 2008. Open source software peer review practices. In 2008 ACM/IEEE 30th International Conference on Software Engineering. 541--550.

[55]

Farig Sadeque, Stephen Rains, Yotam Shmargad, Kate Kenski, Kevin Coe, and Steven Bethard. 2019. Incivility Detection in Online Comments. In Proceedings of the Eighth Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (* SEM 2019). 283--291.

[56]

Johnny Saldaña. 2015. The coding manual for qualitative researchers 3rd ed.). Sage.

[57]

Daniel Schneider, Scott Spurlock, and Megan Squire. 2016. Differentiating Communication Styles of Leaders on the Linux Kernel Mailing List. In Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Open Collaboration. 1--10.

Digital Library

[58]

Fabrizio Sebastiani. 2002. Machine learning in automated text categorization. ACM computing surveys (CSUR), Vol. 34, 1 (2002), 1--47.

[59]

Brittany Shoot. [n.d.]. Linux Founder to Take Some Time Off: I Need to Change Some of My Behavior. http://fortune.com/2018/09/17/linux-git-linus-torvalds-bullying-abuse-time-off/. Accessed: 2018--12--26.

[60]

Sarah Sobieraj and Jeffrey M Berry. 2011. From incivility to outrage: Political discourse in blogs, talk radio, and cable news. Political Communication, Vol. 28, 1 (2011), 19--41.

[61]

Igor Steinmacher, Marco Aurélio Gerosa, and David Redmiles. 2014. Attracting, onboarding, and retaining newcomer developers in open source software projects. In Workshop on Global Software Development in a CSCW Perspective .

[62]

Igor Steinmacher, Igor Wiese, Ana Paula Chaves, and Marco Aurélio Gerosa. 2013. Why do newcomers abandon open source software projects?. In Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE), 2013 6th International Workshop on. IEEE, 25--32.

[63]

Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin. 1990. Open coding. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques, Vol. 2, 1990 (1990), 101--121.

[64]

Anselm L Strauss. 1987. Qualitative analysis for social scientists .Cambridge university press.

[65]

Xin Tan and Minghui Zhou. 2019. How to Communicate When Submitting Patches: An Empirical Study of the Linux Kernel. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 3, CSCW, Article 108 (Nov. 2019), 26 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359210

Digital Library

[66]

Xin Tan, Minghui Zhou, and Brian Fitzgerald. 2020. Scaling Open Source Communities: An Empirical Study of the Linux Kernel. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering (Seoul, South Korea) (ICSE '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1222--1234. https://doi.org/10.1145/3377811.3380920

Digital Library

[67]

Yida Tao, Donggyun Han, and Sunghun Kim. 2014. Writing acceptable patches: An empirical study of open source project patches. In 2014 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution. IEEE, 271--280.

Digital Library

[68]

David R Thomas. 2003. A general inductive approach for qualitative data analysis. (2003).

[69]

Patanamon Thongtanunam, Shane McIntosh, Ahmed E. Hassan, and Hajimu Iida. 2017. Review participation in modern code review. Empirical Software Engineering, Vol. 22, 2 (2017), 768--817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-016--9452--6

Digital Library

[70]

Parastou Tourani, Bram Adams, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2017. Code of conduct in open source projects. In Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER), 2017 IEEE 24th International Conference on. IEEE, 24--33.

[71]

Parastou Tourani, Yujuan Jiang, and Bram Adams. 2014. Monitoring sentiment in open source mailing lists: exploratory study on the apache ecosystem. In Proceedings of 24th annual international conference on computer science and software engineering. IBM Corp., 34--44.

[72]

Anthony J Viera, Joanne M Garrett, et al. 2005. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam med, Vol. 37, 5 (2005), 360--363.

[73]

Wenting Wang, Deeksha Arya, Nicole Novielli, Jinghui Cheng, and Jin L.C. Guo. 2020. ArguLens: Anatomy of Community Opinions On Usability Issues Using Argumentation Models. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376218

Digital Library

[74]

Michael Williams and Tami Moser. 2019. The art of coding and thematic exploration in qualitative research. International Management Review, Vol. 15, 1 (2019), 45--55.

[75]

Claes Wohlin, Per Runeson, Martin Höst, Magnus C Ohlsson, Björn Regnell, and Anders Wesslén. 2012. Experimentation in software engineering .Springer Science & Business Media.

[76]

Yan Xia, Haiyi Zhu, Tun Lu, Peng Zhang, and Ning Gu. 2020. Exploring Antecedents and Consequences of Toxicity in Online Discussions: A Case Study on Reddit. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 4, CSCW2, Article 108 (Oct. 2020), 23 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415179

Digital Library

Cited By

Graf-Vlachy LWagner S(2024)Cleaning Up Confounding: Accounting for Endogeneity Using Instrumental Variables and Two-Stage ModelsACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/3674730Online publication date: 28-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3674730
Berkel NPohl H(2024)Collaborating with Bots and Automation on OpenStreetMapACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction10.1145/366532631:3(1-30)Online publication date: 17-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3665326
Tan XGong YHuang GWu HZhang L(2024)How to Gain Commit Rights in Modern Top Open Source Communities?Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering10.1145/36607841:FSE(1727-1749)Online publication date: 12-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3660784
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

The "Shut the f**k up" Phenomenon: Characterizing Incivility in Open Source Code Review Discussions
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Collaborative and social computing
    1. Empirical studies in collaborative and social computing
2. Software and its engineering
  1. Software creation and management
    1. Collaboration in software development
      1. Open source model

Recommendations

Incivility detection in open source code review and issue discussions
Abstract
Given the democratic nature of open source development, code review and issue discussions may be uncivil. Incivility, defined as features of discussion that convey an unnecessarily disrespectful tone, can have negative consequences to open source ...
Highlights
- BERT detects incivility in both datasets with outstanding performance (F1 > 0.9).
- Classical ML models underperform to classify non-tone-bearing and civil texts.
- Adding the context does not improve the incivility classification.
The influence of workload and civility of treatment on the perpetration of email incivility

We conducted an experiment to examine incivility perpetration in email.We manipulated workload and received civility.Participants perpetrated more incivility under high (vs. low) workload.Participants perpetrated more incivility in response to uncivil (...
Incivility on Facebook and political polarization: The mediating role of seeking further comments and negative emotion
Abstract
This study examined whether and how (in)civility and the presence of supporting evidence in disagreeing comments influence individuals' attitude polarization. The study used a 2 (civility vs. incivility) × 2 (evidence vs. no evidence) ...
Highlights
- Exposure to uncivil disagreeing comments reduces one's willingness to read more comments.

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction Volume 5, Issue CSCW2

CSCW2

October 2021

5376 pages

EISSN:2573-0142

DOI:10.1145/3493286

Editor:
Jeff Nichols
Apple Inc., United States

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2021 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 18 October 2021

Published in PACMHCI Volume 5, Issue CSCW2

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

22
Total Citations
View Citations
541
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)143
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)20

Reflects downloads up to 10 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Graf-Vlachy LWagner S(2024)Cleaning Up Confounding: Accounting for Endogeneity Using Instrumental Variables and Two-Stage ModelsACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/3674730Online publication date: 28-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3674730
Berkel NPohl H(2024)Collaborating with Bots and Automation on OpenStreetMapACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction10.1145/366532631:3(1-30)Online publication date: 17-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3665326
Tan XGong YHuang GWu HZhang L(2024)How to Gain Commit Rights in Modern Top Open Source Communities?Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering10.1145/36607841:FSE(1727-1749)Online publication date: 12-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3660784
Deng YChen ZHe CLu ZLi B(2024)Persuasion or Insulting? Unpacking Discursive Strategies of Gender Debate in Everyday Feminism in ChinaProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642194(1-19)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642194
Taraghi MDorcelus GFoundjem ATambon FKhomh F(2024)Deep Learning Model Reuse in the HuggingFace Community: Challenges, Benefit and Trends2024 IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER)10.1109/SANER60148.2024.00059(512-523)Online publication date: 12-Mar-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/SANER60148.2024.00059
Ferreira IRafiq ACheng J(2024)Incivility detection in open source code review and issue discussionsJournal of Systems and Software10.1016/j.jss.2023.111935209:COnline publication date: 14-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.jss.2023.111935
Hsieh JKim JDabbish LZhu H(2023)"Nip it in the Bud": Moderation Strategies in Open Source Software Projects and the Role of BotsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36100927:CSCW2(1-29)Online publication date: 4-Oct-2023
https://doi.org/10.1145/3610092
Savarimuthu BZareen ZCheriyan JYasir MGalster M(2023)Barriers for Social Inclusion in Online Software Engineering Communities - A Study of Offensive Language Use in Gitter ProjectsProceedings of the 27th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering10.1145/3593434.3593463(217-222)Online publication date: 14-Jun-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3593434.3593463
Badampudi DUnterkalmsteiner MBritto R(2023)Modern Code Reviews—Survey of Literature and PracticeACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/358500432:4(1-61)Online publication date: 26-May-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3585004
Sarker JTurzo ADong MBosu A(2023)Automated Identification of Toxic Code Reviews Using ToxiCRACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/358356232:5(1-32)Online publication date: 22-Jul-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3583562
Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents