Coping with an open bug repository

ABSTRACT

Most open source software development projects include an open bug repository---one to which users of the software can gain full access---that is used to report and track problems with, and potential enhancements to, the software system. There are several potential advantages to the use of an open bug repository: more problems with the system might be identified because of the relative ease of reporting bugs, more problems might be fixed because more developers might engage in problem solving, and developers and users can engage in focused conversations about the bugs, allowing users input into the direction of the system. However, there are also some potential disadvantages such as the possibility that developers must process irrelevant bugs that reduce their productivity. Despite the rise in use of open bug repositories, there is little data about what is stored inside these repositories and how they are used. In this paper, we provide an initial characterization of two open bug repositories from the Eclipse and Firefox projects, describe the duplicate bug and bug triage problems that arise with these open bug repositories, and discuss how we are applying machine learning technology to help automate these processes.

REFERENCES

• 1: J. Anvik, L. Hiew, and G. C. Murphy. Who should fix this bug? Unpublished. Available from the authors.
• 2: G. Canfora and L. Cerulo. How software repositories can help in resolving a new change request. In Workshop on Empirical Studies in Reverse Engineering, September 2005.
• 3: K. Crowston and J. Howison. The social structure of free and open source software development. First Monday, 10, 2005.
• 4: D. Cubranic and G. C. Murphy. Automatic bug triage using text classification. In Proc. of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, pages 92--97, 2004.
• 5: S. R. Gunn. Support Vector Machines for classification and regression. Technical report, University of Southampton, Faculty of Engineering, Science and Mathematics; School of Electronics and Computer Science, May 1998.
• 6: Two case studies of open source software development: Apache and Mozilla, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), v.11 n.3, p.309-346, July 2002 [doi>10.1145/567793.567795]
• 7: E. S. Raymond. The cathedral and the bazaar. First Monday, 3(3), 1998.
• 8: C. Reis, R. Pontin, and M. Fortes. An overview of the software engineering process and tools in the mozilla project. In Proc. of Open Source Soft. Dev. Workshop, Newcastle upon Tyne, pages 155--175, 2002.
• 9: Gerard Salton , Michael J. McGill, Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY, 1986
• 10: R. Sandusky, L. Gasser, and G. Ripoche. Bug report networks: Varieties, strategies, and impacts in a f/oss development community. Proc. of 1st Int'l Workshop on Mining Software Repositories, pages 80--84, 2004.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.5 Testing and Debugging

Keywords:
bugzilla, duplicate detection, machine learning, triage