ICSE '97 Proceedings of the 19th international conference on Software engineering
A case study of distributed, asynchronous software inspection
ICSE '97 Proceedings of the 19th international conference on Software engineering
Shared leadership in the Apache project
Communications of the ACM
A case study of open source software development: the Apache server
Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Software engineering
Collaboration with Lean Media: how open-source software succeeds
CSCW '00 Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work
A framework analysis of the open source software development paradigm
ICIS '00 Proceedings of the twenty first international conference on Information systems
Guest Editors' Introduction: Linux on the Move
IEEE Software
Thoughts on Studying Open Source Software Communities
Proceedings of the IFIP TC8/WG8.2 Working Conference on Realigning Research and Practice in Information Systems Development: The Social and Organizational Perspective
Saros: an eclipse plug-in for distributed party programming
Proceedings of the 2010 ICSE Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering
Free/Libre open-source software development: What we know and what we do not know
ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)
Proceedings of the 2012 iConference
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
This paper focuses on peer review as a quality management technique used in open-source software (OSS) development and the similarities and differences with those of traditional development. The organizational commitment of OSS developers to quality is also explored. A comprehensive web-based questionnaire was completed by OSS and traditional developers. It was found that peer review is generally considered very useful for detecting both defects and flaws in code, as well as being important in contributing to the quality of the software. It is suggested that OSS developers commit to quality through internalization - adopting the ideas as their own, as the majority of the developers indicated that they would perform peer reviews without management direction. Encouragement to perform peer reviews and an organizational culture of peer review make it more likely for the developers to perform peer review under their own initiative, but neither are essential.