Revisiting Dockerfiles in Open Source Software Over Time
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
Docker is becoming ubiquitous with containerization for developing and deploying applications. Previous studies have analyzed Dockerfiles that are used to create container images in order to better understand how to improve Docker tooling. These studies obtain Dockerfiles using either Docker Hub or Github. In this paper, we revisit the findings of previous studies using the largest set of Dockerfiles known to date with over 9.4 million unique Dockerfiles found in the World of Code infrastructure spanning from 2013-2020. We contribute a historical view of the Dockerfile format by analyzing the Docker engine changelogs and use the history to enhance our analysis of Dockerfiles. We also reconfirm previous findings of a downward trend in using OS images and an upward trend of using language images. As well, we reconfirm that Dockerfile smell counts are slightly decreasing meaning that Dockerfile authors are likely getting better at following best practices. Based on these findings, it indicates that previous analyses from prior works have been correct in many of their findings and their suggestions to build better tools for Docker image creation are further substantiated.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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