Developer experience · Comparative empirical archival study measuring review interval, number of developers involved, defect proxies, and knowledge sharing across industrial, open-source, and traditional inspection datasets.
Convergent contemporary software peer review practices
Proceedings of the 2013 9th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE 2013) · 2013
Summary
Peer-review parameters converge across otherwise different projects. The knowledge-sharing measure indicates that peer review increases the number of distinct files a developer knows about by 66% to 150%, depending on project.
For your marketing
Possible founder application
Benchmark review latency, participation, defect proxies, and knowledge diffusion across customers or teams; position code review as a collaboration and bus-factor intervention, not merely a gate.
Reported result
What the study found
Peer-review parameters converge across otherwise different projects. The knowledge-sharing measure indicates that peer review increases the number of distinct files a developer knows about by 66% to 150%, depending on project.
Research question
What the authors investigated
Which parameters and knowledge-sharing properties of peer review converge across contemporary industrial, open-source, and traditional software projects despite different contexts?
Design
Comparative empirical archival study measuring review interval, number of developers involved, defect proxies, and knowledge sharing across industrial, open-source, and traditional inspection datasets.
Sample and setting
Two Google projects (Android and Chrome), three Microsoft projects (Bing, Office, MS SQL), one AMD project, one Lucent inspection project, a compiler, and six open-source projects including Apache, Linux, and KDE.
Scope and transfer
Limitations to keep in view
Cross-project archival comparisons use proxies and heterogeneous datasets rather than randomized interventions; the review and knowledge measures may not be perfectly comparable across projects, and the reported effects do not prove that review alone caused knowledge growth.
Research sources
Bibliographic fields and DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2491411.2491444; abstract, datasets, measures and findings: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/convergent-software-peer-review-practices/ Firecrawl research job 01a14371-854f-71aa-ba3d-455ec397717d returned this citation and metadata.