Revisiting "Programmers' Build Errors" in the Visual Studio Context
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
Build systems translate sources into deliverables. Developers execute builds on a regular basis in order to integrate their personal code changes into testable deliverables. Prior studies have evaluated the rate at which builds in large organizations fail. A recent study at Google has analyzed (among other things) the rate at which builds in developer workspaces fail. In this paper, we replicate the Google study in the Visual Studio context of the MSR challenge. We extract and analyze 13,300 build events, observing that builds are failing 67%-76% less frequently and are fixed 46%-78% faster in our study context. Our results suggest that build failure rates are highly sensitive to contextual factors. Given the large number of factors by which our study contexts differ (e.g., system size, team size, IDE tooling, programming languages), it is not possible to trace the root cause for the large differences in our results. Additional data is needed to arrive at more complete conclusions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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