The nature of build changes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Build systems are an essential part of modern software projects. As software projects change continuously, it is crucial to understand how the build system changes because neglecting its maintenance can, at best, lead to expensive build breakage, or at worst, introduce user-reported defects due to incorrectly compiled, linked, packaged, or deployed official releases. Recent studies have investigated the (co-)evolution of build configurations and reasons for build breakage; however, the prior analysis focused on a coarse-grained outcome (i.e., either build changing or not). In this paper, we present BuildDiff, an approach to extract detailed build changes from Maven build files and classify them into 143 change types. In a manual evaluation of 400 build-changing commits, we show that BuildDiff can extract and classify build changes with average precision, recall, and f1-scores of 0.97, 0.98, and 0.97, respectively. We then present two studies using the build changes extracted from 144 open source Java projects to study the frequency and time of build changes. The results show that the top-10 most frequent change types account for 51% of the build changes. Among them, changes to version numbers and changes to dependencies of the projects occur most frequently. We also observe frequently co-occurring changes, such as changes to the source code management definitions, and corresponding changes to the dependency management system and the dependency declaration. Furthermore, our results show that build changes frequently occur around release days. In particular, critical changes, such as updates to plugin configuration parts and dependency insertions, are performed before a release day. The contributions of this paper lay in the foundation for future research, such as for analyzing the (co-)evolution of build files with other artifacts, improving effort estimation approaches by incorporating necessary modifications to the build system specification, or automatic repair approaches for configuration code. Furthermore, our detailed change information enables improvements of refactoring approaches for build configurations and improvements of prediction models to identify error-prone build files.
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 | 0.004 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".