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

Sai Surya Upadrasta

dblp:279/6518 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2023
0000-0002-0068-6204ORCID · reported

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 since 2021

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
Empirical software engineering · 56% Software maintenance and evolution · 44%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software maintenance and evolution
code review
0.712023
Nudge: Accelerating Overdue Pull Requests toward Completion · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2023
Empirical software engineering › collaborative software development
pull request management
0.712023
Nudge: Accelerating Overdue Pull Requests toward Completion · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2023
Empirical software engineering › developer studies › developer behavior
developer productivity
0.212023
Nudge: Accelerating Overdue Pull Requests toward Completion · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2023

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

randomized trial · 0.7effort estimation · 0.7actor identification · 0.7activity detection · 0.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 Nudge: Accelerating Overdue Pull Requests toward Completion
abstract
Pull requests are a key part of the collaborative software development and code review process today. However, pull requests can also slow down the software development process when the reviewer(s) or the author do not actively engage with the pull request. In this work, we design an end-to-end service, Nudge, for accelerating overdue pull requests toward completion by reminding the author or the reviewer(s) to engage with their overdue pull requests. First, we use models based on effort estimation and machine learning to predict the completion time for a given pull request. Second, we use activity detection to filter out pull requests that may be overdue but for which sufficient action is taking place nonetheless. Last, we use actor identification to understand who the blocker of the pull request is and nudge the appropriate actor (author or reviewer(s)). The key novelty of Nudge is that it succeeds in reducing pull request resolution time, while ensuring that developers perceive the notifications sent as useful, at the scale of thousands of repositories. In a randomized trial on 147 repositories in use at Microsoft, Nudge was able to reduce pull request resolution time by 60% for 8,500 pull requests, when compared to overdue pull requests for which Nudge did not send a notification. Furthermore, developers receiving Nudge notifications resolved 73% of these notifications as positive. We observed similar results when scaling up the deployment of Nudge to 8,000 repositories at Microsoft, for which Nudge sent 210,000 notifications during a full year. This demonstrates Nudge’s ability to scale to thousands of repositories. Last, our qualitative analysis of a selection of Nudge notifications indicates areas for future research, such as taking dependencies among pull requests and developer availability into account.
Chandra Shekhar Maddila, Sai Surya Upadrasta, Chetan Bansal, Nachiappan Nagappan, Georgios Gousios, Arie van Deursen
ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.2