Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Managing Technical Debt
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Welcome to the Third International Workshop on Managing Technical Debt, MTD 2012, co-located with the 34rd International Conference on Software Engineering at Zurich, Switzerland. This is the second year that we are holding this workshop co-located with ICSE. The technical debt metaphor has gained significant traction in the software development community as a way to understand and communicate issues of intrinsic quality, value, and cost in the past few years. The idea is that developers sometimes accept compromises in a system in one dimension (e.g., modularity) to meet an urgent demand in some other dimension (e.g., a deadline), and that such compromises incur a debt: on which has to be paid and which should be repaid at some point for the long-term health of the project. Little is known about technical debt, beyond feelings and opinions. The software engineering research community has an opportunity to study this phenomenon and improve the way it is handled. We can offer software engineers a foundation for managing such tradeoffs based on models of their economic impacts. The first workshop on technical debt was held at the Software Engineering Institute in Pittsburgh on June 2-3, 2010 with the goal of understanding open research questions related to managing technical debt in software. The goal of the second workshop in 2011 was to come up with a more in-depth understanding of technical debt, its definition(s), characteristics, its different forms. The discussions of the second workshop proved that there is an increasing need to formulate a clear research agenda that is well-aligned with the industry challenges. The goal of this third workshop is to discuss managing technical debt as a part of the research agenda for the software engineering field, in particular focusing on eliciting, visualizing debt, and creating pay-back strategies. The software engineering community is in the process of building the research agenda around managing technical debt. The purpose of these initial workshops is to bring forward work in progress and ideas from the entire community to collectively vet their validity for the future. In order to support this goal, submissions were open to the members of the program committee as well as the organizing committee. Following a conflict of interest policy, the papers were selected after a peer review by at least three members of the program committee. For this third workshop we accepted 7 full research and 4 short position papers. The accepted submissions cover a range of topics such as: estimating the size and cost of debt, eliciting and visualizing debt, the technical debt landscape ranging from technical debt in software ecosystems to requirements, design and build, and the relationship between code defects and debt. Managing technical debt is a broad concern of software engineering that blends research and practice. This can be seen from the program and those involved in the workshop program selection process. To encourage interactive discussion, foster brainstorming and community building the workshop will consist of only short presentations from the accepted papers. These short presentations will provide a basis for the participants to investigate further open research questions and challenges in practice. It is for that purpose the program includes sessions dedicated to open discussion.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,010 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,128 | 0,058 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».