continuous integration and quality assurance: a case study of two open source projects
Clicks: 167
ID: 167804
2003
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
167 views
49 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #45 of 68 articles by views in expert review of clinical pharmacology
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
A decentralized variant of continuous integration can be defined in terms of two fundamental rules: (1) Developers’ access to add contributions to the development version at any time, and (2) developers’ obligation to integrate their own contributions properly. Decentralized, continuous integration may adapt well to organizations where developers work relatively independently, as in many open source projects. The approach raises the issue of how these organizations can exercise central control, as attaining the benefits of continuous integration requires that contributions are useful and satisfy the project’s definition of successful integration. We have investigated the use of continuous integration in FreeBSD and Mozilla. Our account of quality assurance activities in the two open source projects distinguishes between Mintzberg’s three complementary forms of central control: Standardization and control of work output, work processes, and worker skills. Our study indicates that two major challenges face projects using decentralized, continuous integration: (1) To balance the access to add contributions against the need to stabilize and mature the software prior to a release, and (2) to consider the developers’ limited time and resources when interpreting their obligation to integrate their changes properly.
| Reference Key |
holck2003australasiancontinuous
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Jesper Holck;Niels Jørgensen |
| Journal | expert review of clinical pharmacology |
| Year | 2003 |
| DOI |
10.3127/ajis.v11i1.145
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.