Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Poedjadevie Ramkisoen
dblp:323/3184 · also Poedjadevie Kadjel Ramkisoen
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 first-author · 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 |
Software maintenance and evolution · 100% |
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 › software updates
backporting |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | PaReco: patched clones and missed patches among the divergent variants of a software family · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2022 |
Software maintenance and evolution › forking
cross-system porting |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | PaReco: patched clones and missed patches among the divergent variants of a software family · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2022 |
Software maintenance and evolution
forking |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | PaReco: patched clones and missed patches among the divergent variants of a software family · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2022 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
patch mining · 0.6clone detection · 0.6
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | PaReco: patched clones and missed patches among the divergent variants of a software familyabstractRe-using whole repositories as a starting point for new projects is often done by maintaining a variant fork parallel to the original. However, the common artifacts between both are not always kept up to date. As a result, patches are not optimally integrated across the two repositories, which may lead to sub-optimal maintenance between the variant and the original project. A bug existing in both repositories can be patched in one but not the other (we see this as a missed opportunity) or it can be manually patched in both probably by different developers (we see this as effort duplication). In this paper we present a tool (named PaReCo) which relies on clone detection to mine cases of missed opportunity and effort duplication from a pool of patches. We analyzed 364 (source to target) variant pairs with 8,323 patches resulting in a curated dataset containing 1,116 cases of effort duplication and 1,008 cases of missed opportunities. We achieve a precision of 91%, recall of 80%, accuracy of 88%, and F1-score of 85%. Furthermore, we investigated the time interval between patches and found out that, on average, missed patches in the target variants have been introduced in the source variants 52 weeks earlier. Consequently, PaReCo can be used to manage variability in “time” by automatically identifying interesting patches in later project releases to be backported to supported earlier releases. Poedjadevie Ramkisoen, John Businge, Brent van Bladel, Alexandre Decan, Serge Demeyer, Coen De Roover, Foutse Khomh |
ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE | 1 |