Who should fix this bug?

ABSTRACT

Open source development projects typically support an open bug repository to which both developers and users can report bugs. The reports that appear in this repository must be triaged to determine if the report is one which requires attention and if it is, which developer will be assigned the responsibility of resolving the report. Large open source developments are burdened by the rate at which new bug reports appear in the bug repository. In this paper, we present a semi-automated approach intended to ease one part of this process, the assignment of reports to a developer. Our approach applies a machine learning algorithm to the open bug repository to learn the kinds of reports each developer resolves. When a new report arrives, the classifier produced by the machine learning technique suggests a small number of developers suitable to resolve the report. With this approach, we have reached precision levels of 57% and 64% on the Eclipse and Firefox development projects respectively. We have also applied our approach to the gcc open source development with less positive results. We describe the conditions under which the approach is applicable and also report on the lessons we learned about applying machine learning to repositories used in open source development.

REFERENCES

• 1: Ricardo A. Baeza-Yates , Berthier Ribeiro-Neto, Modern Information Retrieval, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1999
• 2: Ivan T. Bowman , Richard C. Holt, Reconstructing Ownership Architectures To Help Understand Software Systems, Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Program Comprehension, p.28, May 05-07, 1999
• 3: G. Canfora and L. Cerulo. How software repositories can help in resolving a new change request. In Workshop on Empirical Studies in Reverse Engineering, 2005.
• 4: D. Čubranić and G. C. Murphy. Automatic bug triage using text classification. In Proceedings of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, pages 92--97, 2004.
• 5: Davor Cubranic , Gail C. Murphy , Janice Singer , Kellogg S. Booth, Hipikat: A Project Memory for Software Development, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.31 n.6, p.446-465, June 2005 [doi>10.1109/TSE.2005.71]
• 6: 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, 1998.
• 7: Thorsten Joachims, Text Categorization with Suport Vector Machines: Learning with Many Relevant Features, Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Machine Learning, p.137-142, April 21-23, 1998
• 8: G. H. John and P. Langley. Estimating continous distributions in Bayesian classifiers. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 338--345, 1995.
• 9: Audris Mockus , James D. Herbsleb, Expertise browser: a quantitative approach to identifying expertise, Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Software Engineering, May 19-25, 2002, Orlando, Florida [doi>10.1145/581339.581401]
• 10: Andy Podgurski , David Leon , Patrick Francis , Wes Masri , Melinda Minch , Jiayang Sun , Bin Wang, Automated support for classifying software failure reports, Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, May 03-10, 2003, Portland, Oregon
• 11: J. Ross Quinlan, C4.5: programs for machine learning, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 1993
• 12: E. S. Raymond. The cathedral and the bazaar. First Monday, 3(3), 1998.
• 13: C. R. Reis and R. P. de Mattos Fortes. An overview of the software engineering process and tools in the Mozilla project. In Proceedings of the Open Source Software Development Workshop, pages 155--175, 2002.
• 14: J. D. M. Rennie, L. Shih, J. Teevan, and D. R. Karger. Tackling the poor assumptions of Naive Bayes classifiers. In Proceedings of International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 616--623, 2003.
• 15: Fabrizio Sebastiani, Machine learning in automated text categorization, ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), v.34 n.1, p.1-47, March 2002 [doi>10.1145/505282.505283]
• 16: Richard Segal , Jeffrey O. Kephart, Incremental Learning in SwiftFile, Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Machine Learning, p.863-870, June 29-July 02, 2000
• 17: Ian H. Witten , Eibe Frank, Data mining: practical machine learning tools and techniques with Java implementations, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 2000

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING

General Terms:
Management

Keywords:
bug report assignment, bug triage, issue tracking, machine learning, problem tracking