How should we replicate major/minor contributors?

[andymeneely]

In the literature from Chris Bird, he's got this concept of major/minor contributor. I'd like to replicate that as best we can and compare that to OWNERS files. So, first, let's dig into those papers and replicate that idea as best we can. We'll use this in a comparative study.

He structured his data collection a little bit differently than we did, so we'll need to do some sort of adaptation.

There may have been others who used metrics like this, too. Let's try to use Google Scholar's "what cited this" feature to find those and see how those metrics are implemented.

To count this done, someone needs to write up the Github issue for the metric. We'll discuss it at the weekly meeting, revise it, and assign it.

[rikal]

Here's one of the papers: http://cabird.com/papers/bird2011dtm.pdf

[SidIcarus]

Related Article(s): Triaging incoming change requests: Bug or commit history, or code authorship? link: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6405306&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6405306 pdf link: http://www.cs.wm.edu/~denys/pubs/ICSM'12-DevRecAuthorship.pdf

[frauagrippa]

In last week's meeting, we discussed Chris Bird's concept of a major/minor contributor. We would like to implement a system similar to his to keep track or major/minor contributors. However, we would like to base our information on churn data from non-trivial commits rather than solely on non-trivial commits.