Socio-Technical Evolution of the Ruby Ecosystem in GitHub
1 like483 views
The document analyzes the socio-technical evolution of the Ruby ecosystem on GitHub from 2007 to 2016, highlighting a stabilization in the ecosystem post-2014, marked by increased project abandonment and contributor migration to JavaScript. It identifies significant social changes, such as a decline in new contributor influx and a rise in project abandonment, which have been linked to contributor migration patterns. The study emphasizes the importance of identifying external factors affecting ecosystem sustainability and suggests future work on mechanisms to preserve ecosystem health amidst such changes.
![Introduc0on
SoAware ecosystem
• CollecEon of soAware projects that are developed and evolve together in the
same environment [1]
Socio-technical perspecEve
Sustainable ecosystem
[1] M. Lungu. Towards reverse engineering soAware ecosystems. Int'l Conf. SoAware Maintenance, pages 428-431, 2008.
[2] D. Dhungana, I. Groher, E. Schludermann, S. Biffl. SoAware ecosystems vs. natural ecosystems: learning from the ingenious mind of nature. Eur. Conf. on SoAware
Architecture: Companion Volume, pages 96-102, 2010.
Increase or maintain its user/
developer community over longer
periods of Eme and can survive
inherent changes (such as new
technologies or new products) that
can change the popula,on [2]
2](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/sanerpresentationfinal-170222131144/85/Socio-Technical-Evolution-of-the-Ruby-Ecosystem-in-GitHub-2-320.jpg)
![Objec0ve
InvesEgate the socio-technical evoluEon of soAware ecosystems
Ruby ecosystem
GHTorrent dataset [3]
• 9 year Emespan: October 2007 – September 2016
• Time unit: year quarters
[3] G. Gousios. The GHTorrent dataset and tool suite. Working Conf. Mining SoAware Repositories, pages 233-236, 2013. 5](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/sanerpresentationfinal-170222131144/85/Socio-Technical-Evolution-of-the-Ruby-Ecosystem-in-GitHub-5-320.jpg)
![Analyzed Data
Base Forks Ecosystem
Projects >25.5K >69K >94K
Contributors >59.5K >45K >76K
Commits >3.5M >1.1M >5M
Touched Files >780K >235K >815K
LOC >427M >114M >542M
Filters [4]
• InacEve and
isolated projects
• Short-lived
contributors
6
[4] E. Kalliamvakou, G. Gousios, K. Blincoe, L. Singer, D. M. German, and D. Damian, “An in-depth study of the promises and perils of mining GitHub,” Empirical
SoAware Engineering, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 2035–2071, 2016.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/sanerpresentationfinal-170222131144/85/Socio-Technical-Evolution-of-the-Ruby-Ecosystem-in-GitHub-6-320.jpg)
Socio-Technical Evolution of the Ruby Ecosystem in GitHub
- 1. Socio-Technical Evolu0on of the Ruby Ecosystem in GitHub Eleni Constan,nou, Tom Mens SANER – 22nd February 2017, Klagenfurt, Austria
- 4. Technical Changes in projects Ac,ve Time 2 Time 1 Time 3 New Obsolete 4
- 6. Analyzed Data Base Forks Ecosystem Projects >25.5K >69K >94K Contributors >59.5K >45K >76K Commits >3.5M >1.1M >5M Touched Files >780K >235K >815K LOC >427M >114M >542M Filters [4] • InacEve and isolated projects • Short-lived contributors 6 [4] E. Kalliamvakou, G. Gousios, K. Blincoe, L. Singer, D. M. German, and D. Damian, “An in-depth study of the promises and perils of mining GitHub,” Empirical SoAware Engineering, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 2035–2071, 2016.
- 7. How does the ecosystem grow over 0me? A"er mid-2013: Ecosystem stabilizes 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Projects Obsolete Projects New Projects Active Projects 7
- 8. How does the ecosystem grow over 0me? 8 Before 2014: 30-40% new base projects <10% obsolete From 2014: More projects are abandoned than created 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 ProjectRenewal ProjectAbandonment
- 9. How does the ecosystem evolve (social view)? From 2014: Ecosystem stabilizes 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Team Leavers Joiners Stayers 9
- 10. How does the ecosystem evolve (social view)? 10 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 TeamRenewal TeamAbandonment From 2014: more Leavers, less Joiners
- 11. Evidence of contributor migra0on to JavaScript 11 Ecosystem Ac,ve in Ruby (Contributors) JavaScript 28,322 Ecosystem Abandoned Ruby (Contributors) Percentage JavaScript 20,198 71% Most Ruby Leavers… • worked in JavaScript projects in parallel to Ruby projects • ConEnued to work in JavaScript aAer abandoning Ruby 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 0 100 200 300 400 500 Numberofactiveprojects ×103 Ruby JavaScript
- 12. Do important contributors leave the ecosystem? Diversity index of Leavers (also used in ecology) Increased specializaEon • Large contribuEon to important projects 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 0 1 2 3 4 Specialization 12
- 13. External valida0on Ruby gem downloads: Drop from late 2014 onwards 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 0 2 4 6 8 10 #ofDownloads ×10 8 RubyGems in GitHub RubyGems 13
- 15. Take-away message/Future work Major social changes can highly impact the ecosystem evoluEon Measuring these changes can help in idenEfying such issues early IdenEfy which external factors affect ecosystem sustainability and health 15