Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Jesse Redl
dblp:184/8062
· DBLP profile ↗
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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Software maintenance and evolution
code review |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | CORRECT: code reviewer recommendation at GitHub for Vendasta technologies · ASE 2016 |
Software maintenance and evolution › code review
reviewer recommendation |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | CORRECT: code reviewer recommendation at GitHub for Vendasta technologies · ASE 2016 |
Empirical software engineering › collaborative software development
pull requests |
0.1 | 1 | 2016 | 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
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | CORRECT: code reviewer recommendation at GitHub for Vendasta technologiesabstractPeer 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 |
ASE | 3 |