We discuss the paper “Usage, costs, and benefits of continuous integration in open-source projects” [1] by M. Hilton et al.
Why do this research?
What does the paper do?
The paper uses a mixed-method research design: a quantitative analysis and a survey.
What does the paper find?
Why are the results important?
by Guatam Miglani
by Guatam Miglani
[1] M. Hilton, T. Tunnell, K. Huang, D. Marinov, and D. Dig, “Usage, costs, and benefits of continuous integration in open-source projects,” in Proceedings of the 31st ieee/acm international conference on automated software engineering, 2016, pp. 426–437.
[2] T. Rausch, W. Hummer, P. Leitner, and S. Schulte, “An empirical analysis of build failures in the continuous integration workflows of java-based open-source software,” in Proceedings of the 14th international conference on mining software repositories, 2017, pp. 345–355.
[3] C. Bird and T. Zimmermann, “PREDICTING software build errors.” Feb-2014.
[4] M. Beller, G. Gousios, and A. Zaidman, “Oops, my tests broke the build: An explorative analysis of travis ci with github,” in 2017 ieee/acm 14th international conference on mining software repositories (msr), 2017, pp. 356–367.
[5] M. Beller, G. Gousios, and A. Zaidman, “Travistorrent: Synthesizing travis ci and github for full-stack research on continuous integration,” in Proceedings of the 14th international conference on mining software repositories, 2017, pp. 447–450.
[6] G. Pinto and F. C. R. B. M. Rebouças, “Work practices and challenges in continuous integration: A survey with travis ci users,” 2018.
[7] Y. Zhao, A. Serebrenik, Y. Zhou, V. Filkov, and B. Vasilescu, “The impact of continuous integration on other software development practices: A large-scale empirical study,” in Proceedings of the 32nd ieee/acm international conference on automated software engineering, 2017, pp. 60–71.
[8] D. G. Widder, M. Hilton, C. Kästner, and B. Vasilescu, “I’m leaving you, travis: A continuous integration breakup story,” 2018.