Abstract:Context: The pull-based model, widely used in distributed software development, offers an extremely low barrier to entry for potential contributors (anyone can submit of contributions to any project, through pull-requests). Meanwhile, the project's core team must act as guardians of code quality, ensuring that pull-requests are carefully inspected before being merged into the main development line. However, with pull-requests becoming increasingly popular, the need for qualified reviewers also increases. GitHub facilitates this, by enabling the crowd-sourcing of pull-request reviews to a larger community of coders than just the project's core team, as a part of their social coding philosophy. However, having access to more potential reviewers does not necessarily mean that it's easier to find the right ones (the "needle in a haystack" problem). If left unsupervised, this process may result in communication overhead and delayed pull-request processing.Objective: This study aims to investigate whether and how previous approaches used in bug triaging and code review can be adapted to recommending reviewers for pull-requests, and how to improve the recommendation performance.Method: First, we extend three typical approaches used in bug triaging and code review for the new challenge of assigning reviewers to pull-requests. Second, we analyze social relations between contributors and reviewers, and propose a novel approach by mining each project's comment networks (CNs). Finally, we combine the CNs with traditional approaches, and evaluate the effectiveness of all these methods on 84 GitHub projects through both quantitative and qualitative analysis.Results: We find that CN-based recommendation can achieve, by itself, similar performance as the traditional approaches. However, the mixed approaches can achieve significant improvements compared to using either of them independently.Conclusion: Our study confirms that traditional approaches to bug triaging and code review are feasible for pull-request reviewer recommendations on GitHub. Furthermore, their performance can be improved significantly by combining them with information extracted from prior social interactions between developers on GitHub. These results prompt for novel tools to support process automation in social coding platforms, that combine social (e.g., common interests among developers) and technical factors (e.g., developers' expertise).

A Dataset of Duplicate Pull-Requests in GitHub

Duplicate Pull Request Detection

Detecting Duplicate Pull-requests in GitHub

Redundancy, Context, and Preference: An Empirical Study of Duplicate Pull Requests in OSS Projects

A Dataset for GitHub Repository Deduplication: Extended Description

DupHunter: Detecting Duplicate Pull Requests in Fork-Based Development

Replication Can Improve Prior Results: A GitHub Study of Pull Request Acceptance

Detecting Similar Repositories On Github

Opportunities and Challenges in Repeated Revisions to Pull-Requests: an Empirical Study.

Detecting Duplicate Contributions in Pull-Based Model Combining Textual and Change Similarities

An empirical study of code reuse between GitHub and stack overflow during software development

Public Git Archive: a Big Code dataset for all

Dataset: Copy-based Reuse in Open Source Software

Automatic Detection of Public Development Projects in Large Open Source Ecosystems: an Exploratory Study on GitHub

An Empirical Study of Link Sharing in Review Comments

Reviewer Recommendation for Pull-Requests in GitHub: What Can We Learn from Code Review and Bug Assignment?

Wait for It: Determinants of Pull Request Evaluation Latency on GitHub

Multi-Factor Duplicate Question Detection in Stack Overflow

Predicting the Number of Forks for Open Source Software Project

What Are the Characteristics of Reopened Pull Requests? A Case Study on Open Source Projects in GitHub

Practical Duplicate Bug Reports Detection in a Large Web-Based Development Community.