In this paper, the modeling of developers’ assignment to bugs (DAB) is studied. The problem is modeled both as a single objective (minimize bug fix time) and as a bi-objective (minimize bug fix time and cost) combinatorial optimization problem. Two models of developer assignment are considered where in the first model a single developer is assigned per bug (single developer model), while in the second model a single developer is assigned for each competency area of a bug (individual competency model). The latter model is proposed in this paper. For the single developer model, GA@DAB, an existing genetic algorithm-based approach, is extended to support precedence among bugs. For the individual competency model of DAB, one genetic algorithm-based approach (Competence@DAB) and one nondominated sorting genetic algorithm II-based approach (CompetenceMulti2@DAB) are proposed to generate solutions minimizing time and minimizing both time and cost, respectively. The performance of the proposed approaches was evaluated for 2040 bugs of 19 open-source milestone projects from the Eclipse platform. Our results and analysis show that the proposed individual competency model is far better than the single developer model, with average bug fix time reduction of 39.7% across all projects.
[click for more details…]
Please submit to the 14th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR 2017). The submission deadline is February 10 (abstracts February 3) for the technical track— as always, please check the webpage for any extensions. I’m a member of the Steering Committee.
Software repositories such as source control systems, archived communications between project personnel, and defect tracking systems are used to help manage the progress of software projects. Software practitioners and researchers are recognizing the benefits of mining this information to support the maintenance of software systems, improve software design/reuse, and empirically validate novel ideas and techniques. Research is now proceeding to uncover the ways in which mining these repositories can help to understand software development and software evolution, to support predictions about software development, and to exploit this knowledge in planning future development. The goal of this two-day international conference is to advance the science and practice of software engineering via the analysis of data stored in software repositories.
This year, we solicit three types of papers: research, practice, and data. As in previous MSR editions, there will be a Mining Challenge and a special issue of the best MSR papers published in the Empirical Software Engineering journal. For the research and practice papers, we especially encourage submissions that facilitate reproducibility and follow up research by publicly providing data sets and tools. Publicly providing reusable research artifacts (data or tools) is not mandatory, but will strengthen the reproducibility of the research, which is an explicit evaluation criterion
Please submit to the First International Workshop on Establishing a Community-Wide Infrastructure for Architecture-Based Software Engineering (ECASE 2017). The submission deadline is January 20, 2017 — as always, please check the webpage for any extensions. I’m a member of the Program Committee.
Software architecture plays an important role in facilitating the maintenance of a software system. Over the past two decades, software architecture research has yielded many different tools and techniques for understanding and maintaining the architectures of large, complex software systems. However, empirical research and technology transfer are impeded by myriad disjoint research and development environments, lack of a shared infrastructure, high initial costs associated with developing robust tools, and a lack of datasets needed to conduct empirical research in this domain.
The workshop gathers researchers and practitioners from two areas—software architecture and empirical software engineering—to explore the issues at the intersection of these areas and identify plausible solutions that jointly move both areas forward. The overall objective of the workshop is to collaboratively elicit requirements, propose a design for, and determine the foundation of potential infrastructures and instruments that would support empirical research in the domain of architecture-based software development and maintenance. blockquote>
Please submit to the 8th International Workshop on Empirical Software Engineering in Practice (IWESEP 2017). The submission deadline is December 11, 2016 (abstracts December 7) — as always, please check the webpage for any extensions. I’m a member of the Program Committee.
The objective of the 8th International Workshop on Empirical Software Engineering in Practice (IWESEP) is to foster the development of the area by providing a forum where researchers and practitioners can report on and discuss new research results and applications in the area of empirical software engineering. The workshop encourages the exchange of ideas within the international community to better understand, from an empirical viewpoint, the strengths and weaknesses of technology in use and new technologies, with the expectation of furthering the field of software engineering.
The workshop focuses on the process, design, and structure of empirical studies as well as the results of specific studies. The workshop welcomes both original and replicated studies, varying from controlled experiments to field studies, from quantitative to qualitative. We solicit the following two types of submissions: full research papers (max 6 pages) for oral presentations and abstracts (max 700 words) for poster presentations. Please check the website for more information.
The ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering is proud to host nine exciting workshops in 2016.
Please submit to these workshops! The submission deadline for most workshop papers is July 1, 2016 (23:59:59 AOE); please verify with individual workshops’ official websites.
FSE’16 Workshops provide a forum for discussing topics in software engineering research and practice, and will provide opportunities for researchers and practitioners to exchange and discuss scientific and engineering ideas at a stage before they have matured to warrant conference or journal publication. FSE’16 Workshops also serve as incubators for scientific communities that form and share a particular research agenda.
Thanks to the workshop organizers for putting together these workshops!
[click to continue…]
Programming environments and game environments share many of the same characteristics, such as requiring their users to understand strategies and solve difficult challenges. Yet, only game designers have been able to capitalize on methods that are consistently able to keep their users engaged. Consequently, software engineers have been increasingly interested in understanding how these game experiences can be transferred to programming experiences, a process termed gamification.
In this position paper, we assert through formal argument that gamification as applied today is predominately narrow, placing emphasis on adopting the reward aspects of game mechanics at the expense of other important game elements, such as framing. We argue that more authentic game experiences are possible when programming environments are re-conceptualized and assessed as a holistic, serious games. This broad gamification enables us to more effectively apply and leverage the breadth of game elements to the construction and understanding of programming environments.
[click for more details…]
Background: The relevance of ESEM research to industry practitioners is key to the long-term health of the conference. Aims: The goal of this work is to understand how ESEM research is perceived within the practitioner community and provide feedback to the ESEM community ensure our research remains relevant. Method: To understand how practitioners perceive ESEM research, we replicated previous work by sending a survey to several hundred industry practitioners at a number of companies around the world. We asked the survey participants to rate the relevance of the research described in 156 ESEM papers published between 2011 and 2015. Results: We received 9,941 ratings by 437 practitioners who labeled ideas as Essential, Worthwhile, Unimportant, or Unwise. The results showed that overall, industrial practitioners find the work published in ESEM to be valuable: 67% of all ratings were essential or worthwhile. We found no correlation between citation count and perceived relevance of the papers. Through a qualitative analysis, we also identified a number of research themes on which practitioners would like to see an increased research focus. Conclusions: The work published in ESEM is generally relevant to industrial practitioners. There are a number of topics for which those practitioners would like to see additional research undertaken.
[click for more details…]