Developer experience · Empirical repository study

The impact of continuous integration on other software development practices

International Conference proceedings · 2017

Not exposed in fetched metadata

Original paper ↗

Summary

Studies changes in code writing/submission, issue and pull-request closure, and testing after CI adoption.

For your marketing

Possible founder application

Measure CI adoption against review, testing, and issue-flow changes rather than build success alone.

Reported result

What the study found

Studies changes in code writing/submission, issue and pull-request closure, and testing after CI adoption.

Research question

What the authors investigated

How does the study’s stated design explain its reported outcome in this setting?

Design

Empirical repository study

Sample and setting

Projects adopting Travis CI; abstract-only

Scope and transfer

Limitations to keep in view

Metadata page does not expose detailed sample, controls, or causal estimates.

Research sources

abstract_only

Study strength

3.5/5 Abstract-level evidence is useful for framing questions; verify full methods before transfer.

How this was assessed

The 1–5 evidence-check score is a practical reading aid, not a formal peer review or a probability that a conclusion is true. It combines design strength (2 points), sample reporting (1), comparison/control clarity (1), and how much of the paper could be checked (1). Access affects how confidently this directory can assess a study, not the study's underlying quality. Blinding is reported separately because it is not relevant to every design.

Design transparency · 2/2

Based on the reported study design in the retrieved source.

Sample and setting · 1/1

The sample context is stated; a numerical count is preserved only when reported.

Outcome clarity · 1/1

The finding is summarized from publisher or article metadata.

Access for checking · 0.5/1

Only abstract or bibliographic access was confirmed.

Double-blind? The retrieved publisher record does not establish whether participants or outcome assessors were blinded.