Understanding the role of external pull requests in the NPM ecosystem

The risk to using third-party libraries in a software application is that much needed maintenance is solely carried out by library maintainers. These libraries may rely on a core team of maintainers (who might be a single maintainer that is unpaid and overworked) to serve a massive client user-base....

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: MAEPRASART, Vittunyuta, WATTANAKRIENGKRAI, Supatsara, KULA, Raula Gaikovina, TREUDE, Christoph, MATSUMOTO, Kenichi
Format: text
Language:English
Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2023
Subjects:
Online Access:https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sis_research/8797
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sis_research/article/9800/viewcontent/s10664_023_10315_w.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Singapore Management University
Language: English
id sg-smu-ink.sis_research-9800
record_format dspace
spelling sg-smu-ink.sis_research-98002024-05-30T08:47:19Z Understanding the role of external pull requests in the NPM ecosystem MAEPRASART, Vittunyuta WATTANAKRIENGKRAI, Supatsara KULA, Raula Gaikovina TREUDE, Christoph MATSUMOTO, Kenichi The risk to using third-party libraries in a software application is that much needed maintenance is solely carried out by library maintainers. These libraries may rely on a core team of maintainers (who might be a single maintainer that is unpaid and overworked) to serve a massive client user-base. On the other hand, being open source has the benefit of receiving contributions (in the form of External PRs) to help fix bugs and add new features. In this paper, we investigate the role by which External PRs (contributions from outside the core team of maintainers) contribute to a library. Through a preliminary analysis, we find that External PRs are prevalent, and just as likely to be accepted as maintainer PRs. We find that 26.75% of External PRs submitted fix existing issues. Moreover, fixes also belong to labels such as breaking changes, urgent, and on-hold. Differently from Internal PRs, External PRs cover documentation changes (44 out of 384 PRs), while not having as much refactoring (34 out of 384 PRs). On the other hand, External PRs also cover new features (380 out of 384 PRs) and bugs (120 out of 384 PRs). Our results lay the groundwork for understanding how maintainers decide which external contributions they select to evolve their libraries and what role they play in reducing the workload. 2023-07-01T07:00:00Z text application/pdf https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sis_research/8797 info:doi/10.1007/s10664-023-10315-w https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sis_research/article/9800/viewcontent/s10664_023_10315_w.pdf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Research Collection School Of Computing and Information Systems eng Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University Third-party libraries Pull Requests OSS sustainability Software Ecosystem Software Engineering
institution Singapore Management University
building SMU Libraries
continent Asia
country Singapore
Singapore
content_provider SMU Libraries
collection InK@SMU
language English
topic Third-party libraries
Pull Requests
OSS sustainability
Software Ecosystem
Software Engineering
spellingShingle Third-party libraries
Pull Requests
OSS sustainability
Software Ecosystem
Software Engineering
MAEPRASART, Vittunyuta
WATTANAKRIENGKRAI, Supatsara
KULA, Raula Gaikovina
TREUDE, Christoph
MATSUMOTO, Kenichi
Understanding the role of external pull requests in the NPM ecosystem
description The risk to using third-party libraries in a software application is that much needed maintenance is solely carried out by library maintainers. These libraries may rely on a core team of maintainers (who might be a single maintainer that is unpaid and overworked) to serve a massive client user-base. On the other hand, being open source has the benefit of receiving contributions (in the form of External PRs) to help fix bugs and add new features. In this paper, we investigate the role by which External PRs (contributions from outside the core team of maintainers) contribute to a library. Through a preliminary analysis, we find that External PRs are prevalent, and just as likely to be accepted as maintainer PRs. We find that 26.75% of External PRs submitted fix existing issues. Moreover, fixes also belong to labels such as breaking changes, urgent, and on-hold. Differently from Internal PRs, External PRs cover documentation changes (44 out of 384 PRs), while not having as much refactoring (34 out of 384 PRs). On the other hand, External PRs also cover new features (380 out of 384 PRs) and bugs (120 out of 384 PRs). Our results lay the groundwork for understanding how maintainers decide which external contributions they select to evolve their libraries and what role they play in reducing the workload.
format text
author MAEPRASART, Vittunyuta
WATTANAKRIENGKRAI, Supatsara
KULA, Raula Gaikovina
TREUDE, Christoph
MATSUMOTO, Kenichi
author_facet MAEPRASART, Vittunyuta
WATTANAKRIENGKRAI, Supatsara
KULA, Raula Gaikovina
TREUDE, Christoph
MATSUMOTO, Kenichi
author_sort MAEPRASART, Vittunyuta
title Understanding the role of external pull requests in the NPM ecosystem
title_short Understanding the role of external pull requests in the NPM ecosystem
title_full Understanding the role of external pull requests in the NPM ecosystem
title_fullStr Understanding the role of external pull requests in the NPM ecosystem
title_full_unstemmed Understanding the role of external pull requests in the NPM ecosystem
title_sort understanding the role of external pull requests in the npm ecosystem
publisher Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
publishDate 2023
url https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sis_research/8797
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sis_research/article/9800/viewcontent/s10664_023_10315_w.pdf
_version_ 1814047532786909184