Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Jesse Redl

dblp:184/8062 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2016
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Software maintenance and evolution · 87% Empirical software engineering · 13%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software maintenance and evolution
code review
0.212016
CORRECT: code reviewer recommendation at GitHub for Vendasta technologies · ASE 2016
Software maintenance and evolution › code review
reviewer recommendation
0.212016
CORRECT: code reviewer recommendation at GitHub for Vendasta technologies · ASE 2016
Empirical software engineering › collaborative software development
pull requests
0.112016
CORRECT: code reviewer recommendation at GitHub for Vendasta technologies · ASE 2016

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

mining software repositories · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2016 CORRECT: code reviewer recommendation at GitHub for Vendasta technologies
abstract
Peer code review locates common coding standard violations and simple logical errors in the early phases of software development, and thus, reduces overall cost. Unfortunately, at GitHub, identifying an appropriate code reviewer for a pull request is challenging given that reliable information for reviewer identification is often not readily available. In this paper, we propose a code reviewer recommendation tool-CORRECT-that considers not only the relevant cross-project work experience (e.g., external library experience) of a developer but also her experience in certain specialized technologies (e.g., Google App Engine) associated with a pull request for determining her expertise as a potential code reviewer. We design our tool using client-server architecture, and then package the solution as a Google Chrome plug-in. Once the developer initiates a new pull request at GitHub, our tool automatically analyzes the request, mines two relevant histories, and then returns a ranked list of appropriate code reviewers for the request within the browser's context. Demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXU1wTD6QQ0
Mohammad Masudur Rahman 0001, Chanchal Kumar Roy, Jesse Redl, Jason A. Collins
ASE3