Abstract
AbstractIncreasing code velocity is a common goal for a variety of software projects. The efficiency of the code review process significantly impacts how fast the code gets merged into the final product and reaches the customers. We conducted a qualitative survey to study the code velocity-related beliefs and practices in place. We analyzed 75 completed surveys from SurIndustryDevs participants from the industry and 36 from the open-source community. Our critical findings are (a) the industry and open-source community hold a similar set of beliefs, (b) quick reaction time is of utmost importance and applies to the tooling infrastructure and the behavior of other engineers, (c) time-to-merge is the essential code review metric to improve, (d) engineers are divided about the benefits of increased code velocity for their career growth, (e) the controlled application of the commit-then-review model can increase code velocity. Our study supports the continued need to invest in and improve code velocity regardless of the underlying organizational ecosystem.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference97 articles.
1. Alami A, Cohn ML, Wąisowski A (2020) How do FOSS communities decide to accept pull requests? In: Proceedings of the evaluation and assessment in software engineering EASE ’20. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, pp 220–229. https://doi.org/10.1145/3383219.3383242
2. Allen IE, Seaman CA (2007) Likert scales and data analyses. Qual Prog 40:64–65. http://rube.asq.org/quality-progress/2007/07/statistics/likert-scales-and-data-analyses.html
3. Armstrong K (2022) Category direction–code review 4. https://about.gitlab.com/direction/create/code_review/
4. Bacchelli A, Bird C (2013) Expectations, outcomes, and challenges of modern code review. In: Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on software engineering ICSE ’13. IEEE Press, pp 712–721. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2013.6606617
5. Bagert DJ (2002) Texas licensing of software engineers: all’s quiet, for now. Commun ACM 45(11):92–94. https://doi.org/10.1145/581571.581603