TODO or to bug: exploring how task annotations play a role in the work practices of software developers

ABSTRACT

Software development is a highly collaborative activity that requires teams of developers to continually manage and coordinate their programming tasks. In this paper, we describe an empirical study that explored how task annotations embedded within the source code play a role in how software developers manage personal and team tasks. We present findings gathered by combining results from a survey of professional software developers, an analysis of code from open source projects, and interviews with software developers. Our findings help us describe how task annotations can be used to support a variety of activities fundamental to articulation work within software development. We describe how task management is negotiated between the more formal issue tracking systems and the informal annotations that programmers write within their source code. We report that annotations have different meanings and are dependent on individual, team and community use. We also present a number of issues related to managing annotations, which may have negative implications for maintenance. We conclude with insights into how these findings could be used to improve tool support and software process.

REFERENCES

• 1: L. Bannon and K. Schmidt. "CSCW: Four Characters in Search of a Context," in Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 358--372, 1989.
• 2: Graham Button , Wes Sharrock, Project work: the organisation of collaborative design and development in software engineering, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, v.5 n.4, p.369-386, 1996 [doi>10.1007/BF00136711]
• 3: J.W. Creswell. "Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches," Sage Publications, 2002.
• 4: Sergio Cozzetti B. de Souza , Nicolas Anquetil , Káthia M. de Oliveira, A study of the documentation essential to software maintenance, Proceedings of the 23rd annual international conference on Design of communication: documenting & designing for pervasive information, September 21-23, 2005, Coventry, United Kingdom [doi>10.1145/1085313.1085331]
• 5: Beat Fluri , Michael Wursch , Harald C. Gall, Do Code and Comments Co-Evolve? On the Relation between Source Code and Comment Changes, Proceedings of the 14th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering, p.70-79, October 28-31, 2007 [doi>10.1109/WCRE.2007.21]
• 6: Rebecca E. Grinter, Supporting articulation work using software configuration management systems, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, v.5 n.4, p.447-465, 1996 [doi>10.1007/BF00136714]
• 7: P. Grogono, Comments, assertions and pragmas, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, v.24 n.3, p.79-84, March 1989 [doi>10.1145/66083.66090]
• 8: Zhen Ming Jiang , Ahmed E. Hassan, Examining the evolution of code comments in PostgreSQL, Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Mining software repositories, May 22-23, 2006, Shanghai, China [doi>10.1145/1137983.1138030]
• 9: M. J. Kaelbling, Programming languages should NOT have comment statements, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, v.23 n.10, p.59-60, Oct. 1988 [doi>10.1145/51607.51609]
• 10: Mik Kersten , Gail C. Murphy, Mylar: a degree-of-interest model for IDEs, Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Aspect-oriented software development, p.159-168, March 14-18, 2005, Chicago, Illinois [doi>10.1145/1052898.1052912]
• 11: Jonathan I. Maletic , Michael L. Collard , Andrian Marcus, Source Code Files as Structured Documents, Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Program Comprehension, p.289, June 27-29, 2002
• 12: D. Marin. "What Motivates Programmers to Comment?" Technical Report No. UCB/EECS-2005018, University of California at Berkeley, 2005.
• 13: Gail C. Murphy , Mik Kersten , Leah Findlater, How Are Java Software Developers Using the Eclipse IDE?, IEEE Software, v.23 n.4, p.76-83, July 2006 [doi>10.1109/MS.2006.105]
• 14: E. Nurvitadhi, W. Leung, C. Cook. "Do Class Comments Aid Java Program Understanding?" Frontiers in Education, Volume 1, pp. 5--8, 2003.
• 15: M.P. Robillard and G. Murphy. "Automatically Inferring Concern Code from Program Investigation Activities," in Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 225--234, 2003.
• 16: P.-N. Robillard, Automating comments, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, v.24 n.5, p.66-70, May 1989 [doi>10.1145/66068.66073]
• 17: Mike Robinson, Double-level languages and co-operative working, AI & Society, v.5 n.1, p.34-60, January-March 1991 [doi>10.1007/BF01891356]
• 18: M.-A Storey, L.-T. Cheng, J. Singer, M. Muller, D. Myers, J. Ryall. "How Programmers can Turn Comments into Waypoints for Code Navigation", in Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance, pp. 265--274, 2007.
• 19: Margaret-Anne Storey , Li-Te Cheng , Ian Bull , Peter Rigby, Shared waypoints and social tagging to support collaboration in software development, Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work, November 04-08, 2006, Banff, Alberta, Canada [doi>10.1145/1180875.1180906]
• 20: A. Strauss. "Work and the Division of Labor", The Sociological Quarterly, 26(1), pp. 1--19, 1985.
• 21: Lin Tan , Ding Yuan , Yuanyuan Zhou, Hotcomments: how to make program comments more useful?, Proceedings of the 11th USENIX workshop on Hot topics in operating systems, p.1-6, May 07-09, 2007, San Diego, CA
• 22: T. Tenny, Program Readability: Procedures Versus Comments, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.14 n.9, p.1271-1279, September 1988 [doi>10.1109/32.6171]
• 23: Larry Weissman, Psychological complexity of computer programs: an experimental methodology, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, v.9 n.6, p.25-36, June 1974 [doi>10.1145/953233.953237]
• 24: S. N. Woodfield , H. E. Dunsmore , V. Y. Shen, The effect of modularization and comments on program comprehension, Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Software engineering, p.215-223, March 09-12, 1981, San Diego, California, United States
• 25: Annie T. T. Ying , James L. Wright , Steven Abrams, Source code that talks: an exploration of Eclipse task comments and their implication to repository mining, Proceedings of the 2005 international workshop on Mining software repositories, p.1-5, May 17-17, 2005, St. Louis, Missouri

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.3 Coding Tools and Techniques
          Subjects: Object-oriented programming

General Terms:
Documentation, Human Factors

Keywords:
source code comments, task annotations, work practices