Self-admitted technical debt (SATD) refers to a form of technical debt in which developers explicitly acknowledge and document the existence of technical shortcuts, workarounds, or temporary solutions within the codebase. Over recent years, researchers have manually labeled datasets derived from various software development artifacts: source code comments, messages from the issue tracker and pull request sections, and commit messages. These datasets are designed for training, evaluation, performance validation, and improvement of machine learning and deep learning models to accurately identify SATD instances. However, class imbalance poses a serious challenge across all the existing datasets, particularly when researchers are interested in categorizing the specific types of SATD. In order to address the scarcity of labeled data for SATD identification (i.e., whether an instance is SATD or not) and categorization (i.e., which type of SATD is being classified) in existing datasets, we share the SATDAUG dataset, an augmented version of existing SATD datasets, including source code comments, issue tracker, pull requests, and commit messages. These augmented datasets have been balanced in relation to the available artifacts and provide a much richer source of labeled data for training machine learning or deep learning models.

E-type open-source software inevitably grows in size and complexity over time, and without performing anti-regressive tasks this type of software has a limited lifespan. In this project, a case study of the effect of such anti-regressive tasks is conducted using Grimoire-Lab Graal as a subject. This process is guided by quality metrics and developer insights. The outcome of this work is a life-cycle of maintenance activities, ultimately resulting in a refactored version of GrimoireLab Graal. After applying anti-regressive actions, commonly used software quality metrics decreased (lower is better). Additionally, after performing an experiment to test the evolution readiness of the software, the complexity of the original software increased significantly, whilst no side effects were measured in the revised software.

Because of the distributed and collaborative nature of free / open source software (FOSS) projects, the development effort invested in a project is usually unknown, even after the software has been released. However, this information is becoming of major interest, especially ---but not only--- because of the growth in the number of companies for which FOSS has become relevant for their business strategy. In this paper we present a novel approach to estimate effort by considering data from source code management repositories. We apply our model to the OpenStack project, a FOSS project with more than 1,000 authors, in which several tens of companies cooperate. Based on data from its repositories and together with the input from a survey answered by more than 100 developers, we show that the model offers a simple, but sound way of obtaining software development estimations with bounded margins of error.

The public data available in Open Source Software (OSS) repositories has been used for many practical reasons: detecting community structures; identifying key roles among developers; understanding software quality; predicting the arousal of bugs in large OSS systems, and so on; but also to formulate and validate new metrics and proof-of-concepts on general, non-OSS specific, software engineering aspects. One of the results that has not emerged yet from the analysis of OSS repositories is how to help the “career advancement” of developers: given the available data on products and processes used in OSS development, it should be possible to produce measurements to identify and describe a developer, that could be used externally as a measure of recognition and experience. This paper builds on top of the h-index, used in academic contexts, and which is used to determine the recognition of a researcher among her peers. By creating similar indices for OSS (or any) developers, this work could help defining a baseline for measuring and comparing the contributions of OSS developers in an objective, open and reproducible way.