Continuous Integration (CI) is a well-established practice in traditional software development, but its nuances in the domain of Machine Learning (ML) projects remain relatively unexplored. Given the distinctive nature of ML development, understanding how CI practices are adopted in this context is crucial for tailoring effective approaches. In this study, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of 185 open-source projects on GitHub (93 ML and 92 non-ML projects). Our investigation comprises both quantitative and qualitative dimensions, aiming to uncover differences in CI adoption between ML and non-ML projects. Our findings indicate that ML projects often require longer build duration, and medium-sized ML projects exhibit lower test coverage compared to non-ML projects. Moreover, small and medium-sized ML projects show a higher prevalence of increasing build duration trends compared to their non-ML counterparts. Additionally, our qualitative analysis illuminates the discussions around CI in both ML and non-ML projects, encompassing themes like CI Build Execution and Status, CI Testing, and CI Infrastructure. These insights shed light on the unique challenges faced by ML projects in adopting CI practices effectively.

Continuous Integration (CI) is a software development practice that leads developers to integrate their work more frequently. Software projects have broadly adopted CI to ship new releases more frequently and to improve code integration. The adoption of CI is motivated by the allure of delivering new functionalities more quickly. However, there is little empirical evidence to support such a claim. Through the analysis of 162,653 pull requests (PRs) of 87 GitHub projects that are implemented in 5 different programming languages, we empirically investigate the impact of adopting CI on the time to deliver merged PRs. Surprisingly, only 51.3% of the projects deliver merged PRs more quickly after adopting CI. We also observe that the large increase of PR submissions after CI is a key reason as to why projects deliver PRs more slowly after adopting CI. To investigate the factors that are related to the time-to-delivery of merged PRs, we train regression models that obtain sound median R-squares of 0.64-0.67. Finally, a deeper analysis of our models indicates that, before the adoption of CI, the integration-load of the development team, i.e., the number of submitted PRs competing for being merged, is the most impactful metric on the time to deliver merged PRs before CI. Our models also reveal that PRs that are merged more recently in a release cycle experience a slower delivery time.