Understanding the Time to First Response in GitHub Pull Requests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pull-based development is widely adopted in modern open-source software (OSS) projects, where developers propose changes to the codebase by submitting a pull request (PR). However, due to many reasons, PRs in OSS projects frequently experience delays across their lifespan, including prolonged waiting times for the first response. Such delays may significantly impact the efficiency and productivity of the development process, as well as the retention of new contributors as long-term contributors.In this paper, we conduct an exploratory study on the time-to-first-response for PRs by analyzing 111,094 closed PRs from ten popular OSS projects on GitHub. We find that bots frequently generate the first response in a PR, and significant differences exist in the timing of bot-generated versus human-generated first responses. We then perform an empirical study to examine the characteristics of bot- and human-generated first responses, including their relationship with the PR’s lifetime. Our results suggest that the presence of bots is an important factor contributing to the time-to-first-response in the pull-based development paradigm, and hence should be separately analyzed from human responses. We also report the characteristics of PRs that are more likely to experience long waiting for the first human-generated response. Our findings have practical implications for newcomers to understand the factors contributing to delays in their PRs.
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 | 0.008 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".