The Study of Code Reviews based on Software Maintainability in Open Source Projects

Aziz Nanthaamornphong, Thanyarat Kitpanich


Recently, open source software (OSS) applications have been widely adopting. However, the OSS projects have problems in the software quality, such as security and maintainability. Generally, software engineers focus on the software maintainability because this quality attribute can reduce the cost and increase the productivity of software development. To better understand how the OSS developers improve the source code based on a software maintenance perspective; this research aims to investigate how the developers are interested in the maintainability under the peer code review of the OSS projects. We analyzed whether the code authors changed their code based on the code review's comments related to maintenance issues by examining two OSS projects. We found that the OSS developer community tends to pay more attention to software maintainability. Finally, we expect that this research will increase the empirical evidence about the quality of OSS projects, particularly maintainability.


Code Review; Open Source Software; Software Engineering; Software Maintenance;

Full Text:



V. Tiwari, and R.K. Pandey, “Open source software and reliability metrics,” The International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer and Communication Engineering, vol. 1, no. 10, pp. 808- 815, Dec. 2012.

I. Stamelos, L. Angelis, A. Oikonomou and G. L. Bleris, “Code quality analysis in open source software development,” Information Systems Journal, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 43-60, Jan. 2002.

G. S. Walia and J. C. Carver, “Using error information to improve software quality,” in Proceedings of the IEEE 24th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW), 2013, pp. 107.

R. L. Glass, “Frequently forgotten fundamental facts about software engineering,” IEEE Software, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 112-111, May 2001.

A. Mockus, R. T. Fielding, and J. D. Herbsleb, “Two case studies of open source software development: Apache and Mozill,” Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 309– 346, Jul. 2002.

R. Baker, “Code reviews enhance software quality,” in Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 19th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), 1997, pp. 570–571.

“What is free software?” Available at philosophy/free-sw.html. [Accessed: 12-Jun-2017].

“Gerrit.” Available at [Accessed: 12- Jun-2017].

“Review board.” Available at [Accessed: 12-Jun-2017].

ISO/IEC 25010, Systems and Software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE). ISO/IEC 25010, ed. IEC, 2011.

P. Rigby, B. Cleary, F. Painchaud, M. Storey, and D. German, “Open source peer review–lessons and recommendations for closed source,” IEEE Software, pp. 56-61, Nov. 2012.

P. C. Rigby and M.-A. Storey, “Understanding broadcast based peer review on open source software projects,” in Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), 2011, pp. 541–550.

P. C. Rigby, D. M. German, and M.-A. Storey, “Open source software peer review practices: A case study of the apache server,” in Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 30th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), 2008, pp. 541–550.

O. Baysal, O. Kononenko, R. Holmes, and M. W. Godfrey, “The influence of non-technical factors on code review,” in Proceeding of the IEEE 20th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering (WCRE), 2013, pp. 122-131.

Y. Tao, D. Han, and S. Kim, “Writing acceptable patches: an empirical study of open source project patches,” in Proceeding of the IEEE 30th International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME), 2014, pp. 271-280.

A. Bosu, M. Greiler, and C. Bird, “Characteristics of useful code reviews: an empirical study at Microsoft,” in Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 12th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositoriesd (MSR), 2015, pp. 146-156.

J. Czerwonka, M. Greiler and J.Tilford, “Code reviews do not find bugs : how the current code review best practice slows us down,” in Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 37th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), 2015, pp. 27-28.

R. Rana and M. Staron, “When do software issues and bugs get reported in large open source software project?,” in Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Measurement (IWSM), 2015, pp. 1-14.

M. Fowler, Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code. Addison-Wesley, 1999.

B. C. Wagey, B. Hendradjaya and M. S. Mardiyanto, “A proposal of software maintainability model using code smell measurement,” in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Data and Software Engineering (ICoDSE), 2015, pp. 25-30.

A. Yamashita and S. Counsell, “Code smells as system-level indicators of maintainability: An empirical study,” Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 86, no. 10, pp.2639–2653, Oct. 2013.

M. B. Zanjani, H. Kagdi and C. Bird. “Automatically recommending peer reviewers in modern code review,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 530-543, June 2016.

K. Hamasaki, R. G. Kula, N. Yoshida, A. E. C. Cruz, K. Fujiwara, and H. Iida, “Who does what during a code review?: datasets of OSS peer review repositories,” in Proceedings of the 10th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), 2013, pp. 49–52.

P. Thongtanunam, C. Tantithamthavorn, R. G. Kula, N. Yoshida, H. Iida, and K. Matsumoto, “Who should review my code? A file locationbased code-reviewer recommendation approach for modern code review,” in Proceeding of the 22nd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER), 2015, pp. 141-150.

G. A. Miller, “Wordnet: A lexical database for English,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 39-41, Nov. 1995.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

ISSN: 2180-1843

eISSN: 2289-8131