Change profile analysis of open-source software systems to understand their evolutionary behavior

Abstract

Source code management systems (such as git) record changes to code repositories of Open-Source Software (OSS) projects. The metadata about a change includes a change message to record the intention of the change. Classification of changes,based on change messages, into different change types has been explored in the past to understand the evolution of software systems from the perspective of change size and change density only. However, software evolution analysis based on change classification with a focus on change evolution patterns is still an open research problem. This study examines change messages of 106 OSS projects, as recorded in the git repository, to explore their evolutionary patterns with respect to the types of changes performed over time. An automated keyword-based classifier technique is applied to the change messages to categorize the changes into various types (corrective, adaptive, perfective, preventive, and enhancement). Cluster analysis helps to uncover distinct change patterns that each change type follows. We identify three categories of 106 projects for each change type: high activity, moderate activity, and low activity. Evolutionary behavior is different for projects of different categories. The projects with high and moderate activity receive maximum changes during 76–81 months of the project lifetime. The project attributes such as the number of committers, number of files changed, and total number of commits seem to contribute the most to the change activity of the projects. The statistical findings show that the change activity of a project is related to the number of contributors, amount of work done, and total commits of the projects irrespective of the change type. Further, we explored languages and domains of projects to correlate change types with domains and languages of the projects. The statistical analysis indicates that there is no significant and strong relation of change types with domains and languages of the 106 projects.

Keywords

software evolution / open-source software (OSS) / cluster analysis / change classification

References

[1] Lehman M M. Programs, life cycles and laws of software evolution. Proceedings of the IEEE, 1980, 68(9): 1060–1076

[2] Hindle A, Godfrey M, Holt R C. Mining recurrent activities: fourier analysis of change events. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Software Engineering-Companion. 2009, 295–298

[3] Mockus A, Votta L G. Identifying reasons for software changes using historic databases. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Software Maintenance. 2000, 120–130

[4] Hassan A. Automated classification of change messages in open source projects. ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. 2008, 837–841

[5] Kolassa C, Riehle D, Salim M. The empirical commit frequency distribution of open source projects. In: Proceedings of ACM Joint International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration. 2013

[6] Lin S H, Ma Y T, Chen J X. Empirical evidence on developer’s commit activity for open-source software projects. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering. 2013, 455–460

[7] Tiwari P, Li W, Alomainy R, Wei B Y. An empirical study of different types of changes in the eclipse project. The Open Software Engineering Journal, 2013, 7: 24–37

[8] Kemerer C F, Slaughter S A. An empirical approach to studying software evolution. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1999, 25(4): 493–509

[9] Bennett K H. Software maintenance and evolution: a roadmap. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering. 2000, 73–78

[10] Gupta A, Conradi R, Shull F, Cruzes D, Ackermann C, Rønneberg H, Landre E. Experience report on the effect of software development characteristics on change distribution. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Product Focused Software Process Improvement. 2008, 158–173

[11] Smith N, Capiluppi A, Ramil J F. A study of open source software evolution data using qualitative simulation. Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 2005, 10(3): 287–300

[12] Gonzalez-Barahona J, Robles G, Herriaz I, Ortega F. Studying the laws of software evolution in a long-lived FLOSS project. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 2014, 26(7): 589–612

[13] Koch S. Evolution of open source software systems–a large-scale investigation. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Open Source Systems. 2005, 148–153

[14] Schach S R, Jin B, Wright D R, Heller G Z, Offutt J. Determining the distribution of maintenance categories: survey versus measurement. Empirical Software Engineering, 2003, 8(4): 351–365

[15] Burch E, Kungs H J. Modeling software maintenance requests: acase study. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance. 1997, 40–47

[16] Swanson B. The dimensions of maintenance. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Software Engineering. 1976, 492–497

[17] IEEE. Standard for Software Maintenance (IEEE Std 1219–1998). New York: Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers, 1998

[18] ISO/IEC FDIS 14764:1999(E). Software Engineering—Software Maintenance. Geneva: International Standards Organization, 1999

[19] Lientz B P, Swanson E B, Tompkins G E. Characteristics of application software maintenance. Communication of the ACM, 1978, 21(6): 466–471

[20] Nosek J, Palvia T P. Software maintenance management: changes in the last decade. Journal of Software Maintenance: Research and Practice, 1990, 2(3): 157–174

[21] Lee M G, Jefferson T L. An empirical study of software maintenance of a Web-based Java application. In: Proceedings of the 21st IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance. 2005, 571–576

[22] Basili V, Briand L C, Condon S, Kim Y M, Melo W L, Valettt J D. Understanding and predicting the process of software maintenance releases. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Software Engineering. 1996, 464–474

[23] Sousa M J C, Moreira H M. A Survey on the software maintenance process. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance. 1998, 265–274

[24] Yip S W L, Lam T. A software maintenance survey. In: Proceedings of the 1st Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference. 1994, 70–79

[25] Abran A, Nguyenkim H. Analysis of maintenance work categories through measurement. In: Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Software Maintenance. 1991, 104–113.

[26] Gefen D, Schneberger S L. The non-homogeneous maintenance periods: a case study of software modifications. In: Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Software Maintenance. 1996, 134–141

[27] Meqdadi O, Alhindawi N, Collard M L, Maletic J I. Towards understanding large-scale adaptive changes from version histories. In: Proceedings of the 29th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance. 2013, 416–419

[28] Blei D M, Ng A Y, Jordan M I. Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research. 2003, 3: 993–1022

[29] Kim S, Whitehead E J, Zhang Y. Classifying software changes: clean or buggy. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2008, 34(2): 181–196

[30] Lehnert S, Riebisch M. A taxonomy of change types and its application in software evolution. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference and Workshops on Engineering of Computer Based Systems. 2012, 98–107

[31] Chaplin N, Hale J E, Khan K M, Ramil J F, Tan W G. Types of software evolution and software maintenance. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice, 2001, 13(1): 3–30

[32] Forward A, Lethbridge T C. A taxonomy of software types to facilitate search and evidence-based software engineering. In: Proceedings of the 2008 Conference of the Center for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research: Meeting of Minds. 2008, 14

[33] Saini M, Kaur K. Analyzing the change profiles of software systems using their change logs. International Journal of Software Engineering- Egypt, 2014, 7(2): 39–66

[34] Larose D T. K-nearest neighbor algorithm. Discovering Knowledge in Data: An Introduction to Data Mining, 2005, 90–106

[35] Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurements, 1960, 20(1): 37–46

[36] Kohavi R. A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. In: Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 1995, 1137–1145

[37] Cleveland W S. LOWESS: a program for smoothing scatterplots by robust locally weighted regression. The American Statistician, 1981, 35(1): 54

[38] Massart D L, Smeyers-Verbeke A J, Capron A X, Schlesier K B. Visual presentation of data by means of box plots. LC-GC Europe, 2005, 18(4): 2–5

[39] Ramsay J O, Silverman B W. Applied Functional Data Analysis: Methods and Case Studies. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2002

[40] Cuesta-Albertos J A, Gordaliza A, Matrán C. Trimmed k-means: an attempt to robustify quantizers. The Annals of Statistics, 1997, 25(2): 553–576

[41] Han J, Kamber M. Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann, 2000

[42] Kothari R, Pitts D. On finding the number of clusters. Pattern Recognition Letters, 1999, 20(4): 405–416

[43] Kohavi R. A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. In: Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 1995, 1137–1145

[44] Moore D S. Chi-square tests. Purdue University, 1976

[45] Bolstad B M, Irizarry R A, Åstrand M, Speed T P.A comparison of normalization methods for high density oligonucleotide array data based on variance and bias. Bioinformatics. 2003, 19(2): 185–193

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2018 Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature