Why are Commits Being Reverted?: A Comparative Study of Industrial and Open Source Projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software development is a cyclic process of integrating new features while introducing and fixing defects. During development, commits that modify source code files are uploaded to version control systems. Occasionally, these commits need to be reverted, i.e., the code changes need to be completely backed out of the software project. While one can often speculate about the purpose of reverted commits (e.g., the commit may have caused integration or build problems), little empirical evidence exists to substantiate such claims. The goal of this paper is to better understand why commits are reverted in large software systems. To that end, we quantitatively and qualitatively study two proprietary and four open source projects to measure: (1) the proportion of commits that are reverted, (2) the amount of time that commits that are eventually reverted linger within a codebase, and (3) the most frequent reasons why commits are reverted. Our results show that 1%-5% of the commits in the studied systems are reverted. Those commits that are eventually reverted linger within the studied codebases for 1-35 days (median). Furthermore, we identify 13 common reasons for reverting commits, and observe that the frequency of reverted commits of each reason varies broadly from project to project. A complementary qualitative analysis suggests that many reverted commits could have been avoided with better team communication and change awareness. Our findings made Sony Mobile's stakeholders aware that internally reverted commits can be reduced by paying more attention to their own changes. On the other hand, externally reverted commits could be minimized only if external stakeholders are involved to improve inter-company communication or requirements elicitation.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".