social and technical evolution of the ruby on rails software ecosystem
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Social and Technical Evolution of the Ruby on Rails Software Ecosystem](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022030305/5871afb01a28abda6a8b653f/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Social and Technical Evolution of Software Ecosystems
A Case Study of Rails
Eleni Constantinou, Tom Mens
4th International Workshop on Software Ecosystem Architectures (WEA 2016)
![Page 2: Social and Technical Evolution of the Ruby on Rails Software Ecosystem](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022030305/5871afb01a28abda6a8b653f/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
1
Research Team
![Page 3: Social and Technical Evolution of the Ruby on Rails Software Ecosystem](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022030305/5871afb01a28abda6a8b653f/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Introduction Software ecosystem
• Collection of software projects that are developed and evolve together in the same environment [1]
Ecosystem environment • Development team ⇒ Social aspect • Source code artefacts ⇒ Technical aspect
Modifications • Social: Contributors joining/leaving • Technical: New/obsolete source code files
[1] M. Lungu. Towards reverse engineering software ecosystems. Int'l Conf. Software Maintenance, pages 428-431, 2008. 2
![Page 4: Social and Technical Evolution of the Ruby on Rails Software Ecosystem](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022030305/5871afb01a28abda6a8b653f/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Introduction Evolution • Longevity • Growth Ecosystem sustainability
Negative impact of major social changes
A sustainable software ecosystem can increase or maintain its user/developer community over longer periods of time
and can survive inherent changes such as new technologies or new
products (e.g. from competitors) that can change the population (the community
of users, developers etc) [2]
[2] D. Dhungana, I. Groher, E. Schludermann, S. Biffl. Software ecosystems vs. natural ecosystems: learning from the ingenious mind of nature. Eur. Conf. on Software Architecture: Companion Volume, pages 96-102, 2010. 3
![Page 5: Social and Technical Evolution of the Ruby on Rails Software Ecosystem](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022030305/5871afb01a28abda6a8b653f/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Background
4
Time Unit 1
Time Unit 2
Time Unit 3 … Time
Unit N-2 Time
Unit N-1 Time
Unit N START
END
Software Ecosystem Evolution
Technical Artefacts
Technical Artefacts
![Page 6: Social and Technical Evolution of the Ruby on Rails Software Ecosystem](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022030305/5871afb01a28abda6a8b653f/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Definitions
5
Social Metrics
Leavers(t)
Joiners(t)
Stayers(t)
TeamTurnover(t)
TeamAbandonment(t)
Technical Metrics
Obsolete(t)
New(t)
Maintained(t)
FileTurnover(t)
FileAbandonment(t)
![Page 7: Social and Technical Evolution of the Ruby on Rails Software Ecosystem](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022030305/5871afb01a28abda6a8b653f/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Dataset • Ruby on Rails
• Largest/most popular Ruby project
• GHTorrent dataset [2] (2016-09-05 dump)
• Timespan: April 2008 – September 2016
• Time unit: year quarters
• Commit activity
• Base project/Forks/Ecosystem [2] G. Gousios. The GHTorrent dataset and tool suite. Working Conf. Mining Software Repositories, pages 233-236, 2013. 6
![Page 8: Social and Technical Evolution of the Ruby on Rails Software Ecosystem](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022030305/5871afb01a28abda6a8b653f/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Dataset Problems - Noise • Forks can be simple copies of the base project
• Non source code files or irrelevant files can be committed (e.g., temporary files)
• One-time and occasional contributors
7
![Page 9: Social and Technical Evolution of the Ruby on Rails Software Ecosystem](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022030305/5871afb01a28abda6a8b653f/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Dataset Filters 1. Forks
Filter: Merged back to the base
2. Files Filter: Source code files
3. Contributors Filter: Contributors whose AVG activity is equal/greater than 2 quarters
Base Forks Ecosystem
Count 1 1,896 1,897
Contributors 1,827 2,154 3,121
Commits 43,195 25,938 69,133
Base Forks Ecosystem
Count 1 692 693
Contributors 430 681 765
Commits 40,660 22,923 63,583
8
![Page 10: Social and Technical Evolution of the Ruby on Rails Software Ecosystem](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022030305/5871afb01a28abda6a8b653f/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Research Questions RQ1 How does the commit activity of the ecosystem (in base and forks) evolve over time? RQ2 How does the development population and file activity change over time? RQ3 How do changes in the development team affect the file activity of the ecosystem?
9
![Page 11: Social and Technical Evolution of the Ruby on Rails Software Ecosystem](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022030305/5871afb01a28abda6a8b653f/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
RQ1 How does the commit activity of the ecosystem (in base and forks) evolve over time?
Forks since quarter 13 (July 2011)
• Increasing commit activity • Development effort heavily
depends on forks since October 2012 (quarter 18)
10
![Page 12: Social and Technical Evolution of the Ruby on Rails Software Ecosystem](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022030305/5871afb01a28abda6a8b653f/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
RQ2 How does the development population and file activity change over time?
Base Project Forks Ecosystem
Core contributors: Small number of people join/leave the ecosystem
11
![Page 13: Social and Technical Evolution of the Ruby on Rails Software Ecosystem](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022030305/5871afb01a28abda6a8b653f/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
RQ2 How does the development population and file activity change over time?
Base Project Forks Ecosystem
Forks: Increasing trend Low number of obsolete files 12
![Page 14: Social and Technical Evolution of the Ruby on Rails Software Ecosystem](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022030305/5871afb01a28abda6a8b653f/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
RQ2 How does the development population and file activity change over time?
Percentage %
TeamTurnover 25 ± 12
TeamAbandonment 14 ± 10
FileTurnover 15 ± 11
FileAbandonment 10 ± 7
Moderate social and technical modifications Ecosystem growth
13
![Page 15: Social and Technical Evolution of the Ruby on Rails Software Ecosystem](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022030305/5871afb01a28abda6a8b653f/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
RQ3 How do changes in the development team affect the file activity of the ecosystem?
25% of obsolete files were maintained by Leavers
14
![Page 16: Social and Technical Evolution of the Ruby on Rails Software Ecosystem](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022030305/5871afb01a28abda6a8b653f/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Findings • Intensive use of the fork and push mechanisms
of GitHub since July 2011 (quarter 13)
• Both the development team and files showed a roughly linearly increasing trend
• Moderate impact of Leavers on the technical part of the ecosystem
15
![Page 17: Social and Technical Evolution of the Ruby on Rails Software Ecosystem](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022030305/5871afb01a28abda6a8b653f/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Do Leavers engage in other ecosystems?
Ecosystem Active in Ruby
JavaScript 18,038
Python 10,211
Java 7,363
16
Ecosystem Abandoned Ruby Percentage
JavaScript 13,814 77%
Python 8,131 79%
Java 5,132 70%
![Page 18: Social and Technical Evolution of the Ruby on Rails Software Ecosystem](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022030305/5871afb01a28abda6a8b653f/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Threats to validity Multiple user accounts
• Less common within the same GitHub repository
• Identity merging [3] Rails project
• Large/significant Ruby project • Entire Ruby ecosystem
Effort measurement • Commit squashing • LOC
17 [3] M. Goeminne and T. Mens, “A comparison of identity merge algorithms for software repositories,” Science of Computer Programming, vol. 78, no. 8, pages 971–986, 2013
![Page 19: Social and Technical Evolution of the Ruby on Rails Software Ecosystem](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022030305/5871afb01a28abda6a8b653f/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Conclusion • Case study of the Rails evolution in GitHub
• Magnitude and effect of socio-technical changes
• Moderate impact of modifications on the ecosystem
• Sustainable ecosystem • Socio-technical growth • Longevity
18
![Page 20: Social and Technical Evolution of the Ruby on Rails Software Ecosystem](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022030305/5871afb01a28abda6a8b653f/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Ongoing/Future Work • Ruby ecosystem in GitHub (>60K projects)
• Leavers knowledge and specialization (relative entropy)
• Ecosystem migration (Ruby à JavaScript)
• Practices eliminating the effect of occasional contributors
19
![Page 21: Social and Technical Evolution of the Ruby on Rails Software Ecosystem](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022030305/5871afb01a28abda6a8b653f/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Thank you!
20