Recovering commit dependencies for selective code integration in software product lines
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In software product lines, multiple products of a software product family, share source code of common components. New features added to the common components of a software product family, are integrated into products following a selective code integration process. Selective code integration is a process in which developers pick the commits (i.e., code changes) related to a feature from one code branch and integrate them into another code branch. Developers often manually link the commits to the features to enable the selective integration of features. In current practice, not all dependent commits are always linked to features and developers might miss the unlinked commits during selective code integration. In this paper, we propose two grouping approaches that identify dependencies among commits and create groups of dependent commits that need to be integrated as a whole into a code branch. Our first approach is automatic and the other is developer-guided. Through a case study on data derived from a product line of mobile software applications, we show that our approaches can help to reduce by up to 94% integration failures caused by missing commit dependencies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it