Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Socio-Technical Evolution of the Ruby Ecosystem in GitHub

276 views

Published on

Presentation at SANER 2017 by Eleni Constantinou of joint research with Tom Mens (University of Mons) on a socio-technical analysis of the evolution of the Ruby software ecosystem in GitHub.

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

Socio-Technical Evolution of the Ruby Ecosystem in GitHub

  1. 1. Socio-Technical Evolu0on of the Ruby Ecosystem in GitHub Eleni Constan,nou, Tom Mens SANER – 22nd February 2017, Klagenfurt, Austria
  2. 2. Introduc0on SoAware ecosystem •  CollecEon of soAware projects that are developed and evolve together in the same environment [1] Socio-technical perspecEve Sustainable ecosystem [1] M. Lungu. Towards reverse engineering soAware ecosystems. Int'l Conf. SoAware Maintenance, pages 428-431, 2008. [2] D. Dhungana, I. Groher, E. Schludermann, S. Biffl. SoAware ecosystems vs. natural ecosystems: learning from the ingenious mind of nature. Eur. Conf. on SoAware Architecture: Companion Volume, pages 96-102, 2010. Increase or maintain its user/ developer community over longer periods of Eme and can survive inherent changes (such as new technologies or new products) that can change the popula,on [2] 2
  3. 3. Social changes Stayers Time 2 Time 1 Time 3 Joiners Leaver 3
  4. 4. Technical Changes in projects Ac,ve Time 2 Time 1 Time 3 New Obsolete 4
  5. 5. Objec0ve InvesEgate the socio-technical evoluEon of soAware ecosystems Ruby ecosystem GHTorrent dataset [3] •  9 year Emespan: October 2007 – September 2016 •  Time unit: year quarters [3] G. Gousios. The GHTorrent dataset and tool suite. Working Conf. Mining SoAware Repositories, pages 233-236, 2013. 5
  6. 6. Analyzed Data Base Forks Ecosystem Projects >25.5K >69K >94K Contributors >59.5K >45K >76K Commits >3.5M >1.1M >5M Touched Files >780K >235K >815K LOC >427M >114M >542M Filters [4] •  InacEve and isolated projects •  Short-lived contributors 6 [4] E. Kalliamvakou, G. Gousios, K. Blincoe, L. Singer, D. M. German, and D. Damian, “An in-depth study of the promises and perils of mining GitHub,” Empirical SoAware Engineering, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 2035–2071, 2016.
  7. 7. How does the ecosystem grow over 0me? A"er mid-2013: Ecosystem stabilizes 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Projects Obsolete Projects New Projects Active Projects 7
  8. 8. How does the ecosystem grow over 0me? 8 Before 2014: 30-40% new base projects <10% obsolete From 2014: More projects are abandoned than created 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 ProjectRenewal ProjectAbandonment
  9. 9. How does the ecosystem evolve (social view)? From 2014: Ecosystem stabilizes 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Team Leavers Joiners Stayers 9
  10. 10. How does the ecosystem evolve (social view)? 10 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 TeamRenewal TeamAbandonment From 2014: more Leavers, less Joiners
  11. 11. Evidence of contributor migra0on to JavaScript 11 Ecosystem Ac,ve in Ruby (Contributors) JavaScript 28,322 Ecosystem Abandoned Ruby (Contributors) Percentage JavaScript 20,198 71% Most Ruby Leavers… •  worked in JavaScript projects in parallel to Ruby projects •  ConEnued to work in JavaScript aAer abandoning Ruby 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 0 100 200 300 400 500 Numberofactiveprojects ×103 Ruby JavaScript
  12. 12. Do important contributors leave the ecosystem? Diversity index of Leavers (also used in ecology) Increased specializaEon •  Large contribuEon to important projects 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 0 1 2 3 4 Specialization 12
  13. 13. External valida0on Ruby gem downloads: Drop from late 2014 onwards 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 0 2 4 6 8 10 #ofDownloads ×10 8 RubyGems in GitHub RubyGems 13
  14. 14. Summary Growth of the Ruby ecosystem unEl 2014 Socio-technical decline from 2014 onwards Preliminary evidence of contributor migraEon to other ecosystems 14
  15. 15. Take-away message/Future work Major social changes can highly impact the ecosystem evoluEon Measuring these changes can help in idenEfying such issues early IdenEfy which external factors affect ecosystem sustainability and health 15
  16. 16. Which mechanisms can preserve ecosystem health in the case of major socio- technical changes? Which factors impact ecosystem health? 16
  17. 17. Thank you! eleni.constanEnou@umons.ac.be tom.mens@umons.ac.be

×