Background: Hackathons have become popular events for teams to collaborate on projects and develop software prototypes. Most existing research focuses on activities during an event with limited attention to the evolution of the code brought to or created during a hackathon. Aim: We aim to understand the evolution of hackathon-related code, specifically, how much hackathon teams rely on pre-existing code or how much new code they develop during a hackathon. Moreover, we aim to understand if and where that code gets reused. Method: We collected information about 22,183 hackathon projects from Devpost- a hackathon database - and obtained related code (blobs), authors, and project characteristics from the World of Code. We investigated if code blobs in hackathon projects were created before, during, or after an event by identifying the original blob creation date and author, and also checked if the original author was a hackathon project member. We tracked code reuse by first identifying all commits containing blobs created during an event before determining all projects that contain those commits. Result: While only approximately 9.14% of the code blobs are created during hackathons, this amount is still significant considering time and member constraints of such events. Approximately a third of these code blobs get reused in other projects. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates to what extent pre-existing code is used and new code is created during a hackathon and how much of it is reused elsewhere afterwards. Our findings help to better understand code reuse as a phenomenon and the role of hackathons in this context and can serve as a starting point for further studies in this area.

Background: Hackathons have become popular events for teams to collaborate on projects and develop software prototypes. Most existing research focuses on activities during an event with limited attention to the evolution of the code brought to or created during a hackathon. Aim: We aim to understand the evolution of hackathon-related code, specifically, how much hackathon teams rely on pre-existing code or how much new code they develop during a hackathon. Moreover, we aim to understand if and where that code gets reused, and what factors affect reuse. Method: We collected information about 22,183 hackathon projects from Devpost- a hackathon database - and obtained related code (blobs), authors, and project characteristics from the World of Code. We investigated if code blobs in hackathon projects were created before, during, or after an event by identifying the original blob creation date and author, and also checked if the original author was a hackathon project member. We tracked code reuse by first identifying all commits containing blobs created during an event before determining all projects that contain those commits. Result: While only approximately 9.14% of the code blobs are created during hackathons, this amount is still significant considering time and member constraints of such events. Approximately a third of these code blobs get reused in other projects. The number of associated technologies and the number of participants in a project increase reuse probability. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates to what extent pre-existing code is used and new code is created during a hackathon and how much of it is reused elsewhere afterwards. Our findings help to better understand code reuse as a phenomenon and the role of hackathons in this context and can serve as a starting point for further studies in this area.

Background: Some developer activity traditionally performed manually, such as making code commits, opening, managing, or closing issues is increasingly subject to automation in many OSS projects. Specifically, such activity is often performed by tools that react to events or run at specific times. We refer to such automation tools as bots and, in many software mining scenarios related to developer productivity or code quality, it is desirable to identify bots in order to separate their actions from actions of individuals. Aim: Find an automated way of identifying bots and code committed by these bots, and to characterize the types of bots based on their activity patterns. Method and Result: We propose BIMAN, a systematic approach to detect bots using author names, commit messages, files modified by the commit, and projects associated with the commits. For our test data, the value for AUC-ROC was 0.9. We also characterized these bots based on the time patterns of their code commits and the types of files modified, and found that they primarily work with documentation files and web pages, and these files are most prevalent in HTML and JavaScript ecosystems. We have compiled a shareable dataset containing detailed information about 461 bots we found (all of which have more than 1000 commits) and 13,762,430 commits they created.

The data collected from open source projects provide means to model large software ecosystems, but often suffer from data quality issues, specifically, multiple author identification strings in code commits might actually be associated with one developer. While many methods have been proposed for addressing this problem, they are either heuristics requiring manual tweaking, or require too much calculation time to do pairwise comparisons for 38M author IDs in, for example, the World of Code collection. In this paper, we propose a method that finds all author IDs belonging to a single developer in this entire dataset, and share the list of all author IDs that were found to have aliases. To do this, we first create blocks of potentially connected author IDs and then use a machine learning model to predict which of these potentially related IDs belong to the same developer. We processed around 38 million author IDs and found around 14.8 million IDs to have an alias, which belong to 5.4 million different developers, with the median number of aliases being 2 per developer. This dataset can be used to create more accurate models of developer behaviour at the entire OSS ecosystem level and can be used to provide a service to rapidly resolve new author IDs.