{"id":1069,"date":"2016-09-24T09:58:48","date_gmt":"2016-09-24T00:58:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/se.is.kit.ac.jp\/?post_type=jetpack-portfolio&p=1069"},"modified":"2016-09-27T21:50:03","modified_gmt":"2016-09-27T12:50:03","slug":"analysis-of-code-review-repositories","status":"publish","type":"jetpack-portfolio","link":"https:\/\/se.is.kit.ac.jp\/\/portfolio\/analysis-of-code-review-repositories\/","title":{"rendered":"(English) Analysis of Software Evolution"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

We intend to assess the improvements of Gerrit. The central
\nconcern is \u201cDoes Rietveld evolve into Gerrit as the developers intended?\u201d To answer
\nthis question, we first compare qualitative features of two code review tools. We
\nthen conducted an interview with a developer of Gerrit and obtained the developer\u2019s
\noriginal intention of improvements in Gerrit. By analyzing mined data from code
\nreview logs, we try to explain the effects of improvements quantitatively. The result
\nof analysis showed us that the improvements of Gerrit that the developer is expected
\nare not observed explicitly.<\/p>\n

References:<\/h4>\n